'C' 

V2‘ 

.'C' 

7  1/  ‘Bxsqo 

S6a 


^’NEILL  LIBRARY 
BOSTON  COI.LFGE 


I 


% 


\ 


i 


\ 


» . 


/  / 


•  -  •  *'. 


COMPRISING 

Reviews,  Lectures,  and  Essays, 

O  N 

Historical,  Theological,  and  Miscellaneous  Subjects. 


By  M.  J.  SPALcr^^D.D. 

Archbishop  of  Baltimo^^^-, 


QuKcumque  in  foliia  descripsil  .  .  . 

Digerit  in  numerum, . 

Ne  turbaca  voleut  rapidis  liidibi-ia  ventia. 


What  time  and  place  disjoin,  is  here  combined. 

Leas  sporting  winds  disperse  the  flying  leaves.— VinorL 


IN  TWO  VOLUMES. 

VoL.  I.  —  Ills  TORI  CAL. 


Sixth  Edition,  Revised  and  Greatly  Enlaroed. 


BALTIMORE: 

Published  by  John  Murphy  &  Cc. 

182  Baltimore  Street. 

1875. 

POST’ON  COLl^EGE  LIBRARY 

•’VVL,  MAS3, 


'T  • 


ENTKnKD.  according  to  an  Act  of  Congress,  in’  the  year  1866,  by 
Wkbb,  Gill  <fe  Lkvkuing,  in  the  Cierk's  Office  of  the  District 
Court  of  the  United  States  for  the  District  of  Kentucky. 


Entered,  according  to  the  Act  of  Congress,  in  the  year  1866, 
B  Y  J  0 II  N  M  U  K  r  II  Y, 

in  the  Clerk’s  Office  of  the  District  Court  of  Maryland. 


I 


69185 


Preface  to  the  Fourth  Edition. 


Eleven  years  ago,  the  first  edition  of  the  following  work  wcs, 

published,  and  it  was  speedily  followed  by  two  others.  The  interest 

awakened  in  the  public  mind  by  the  Know-Nothing  movement,  tlion  b.t 

its  highest  point  of  excitement,  caused  many  non-Catholics,  who  had 

never  previously  examined  the  merits  of  the  Catholic  Church,  to  read  • 

with  eagerness  every  thing  which  fell  in  their  way  having  reference  to 

the  great  religious  question,  now  become  one  of  vast  political  import- 

ance.  The  result  was  most  favorable  to  the  cause  of  truth.  The 

Catholic  Church  courts,  and  she  is  benefited  by  earnest  inquiry  ;  she  has 

no  concealment.  It  was  found,  that  the  charges  made  against  Catholics 

were  wholly  unfounded,  and  that  they  originated  in  blind  prejudice, 

aggravated  by  interested  motives.  The  leaders  of  the  movement  could 

hope  to  obtain  power  and  lucrative  office,  only  by  passing  over  the 

ruins  of  the  Catholic  Church.  Those  unprincipled  men  were  happily 

foiled  in  their  unworthy  efforts,  and  the  Church  came  out  of  the  conflict 

much  stronger  than  she  had  gone  into  it;  thus  adding  another  to  the 

thousand  brilliant  victories  she  had  achieved,  in  the  battle-fields  of  the 

'  % 

world  and  of  history,  over  the  unbridled  passions  of  men. 

The  Introductory  Address  refers  to  the  state  of  things  which  existed 
in  this  Country  in  the  Spring  and  Summer  of  1855,  while  the  storm  of 
persecution  was  brewing  against  the  Church ;  and  though  the  popular 
excitement  against  the  Catholics  has  happily,  to  a  great  extent,  sii:ce 
passed  away,  or  at  least  been  greatly  calmed  down,  and  has.been  suc¬ 
ceeded  by  more  just  and  liberal  sentiments,  yet  it  has  been  thought  vvell 
to  preserve  the  Address  in  the  present  edition,  with  some  modifications, 
partly  as  an  historical  remembrancer  of  old-time  prejudice,  and  partly 
because  it  treats  of  subjects  which  are  of  more  than  passing  interest, 
and  which  may  again  come  up,  should  another  attempt  be  made  to  put 
down  the  Church  by  popular  clamor  and  unreasoning  bigotry.  A 

feeble  effort  of  the  kind  was  made  a  few  months  ago,  but  it  seems  to 

*■ 

have  awakened  no  echo  in  the  popular  mind,  which  can  seldom  be  a 
second  time  deceived  in  the  same  direction. 

I  * 

To  the  Essays,  Reviews,  and  Lectures  contained  in  the  previous 
editions,  we  have  in  this  added  many  new  ones,  some  of  the  latter  hav- 


4 


Preface  to  the  Fourth  Edition. 


ing  been  .written  since  the  former  were  issued.  According  to  the  judg¬ 
ment  of  perhaps  over-partial  friends,  these  are  considered  of  sufTicient 
importance,  to  be  preserved  in  a  more  permanent  form  than  in  the 
columns  of  Magazines  and  Reviews,  ^he  additional  matter,  thus  given 
to  the  public  in  the  present  edition,  amounts  to  upwards  of  one  hundred 
and  sixty  pages,  including  the  new  notices  prefixed  to  most  of  the  new¬ 
ly  published  articles. 

While  I  have  sought  carefully  to  revise  all  the  papers  contained  in 
these  Volumes — now  amounting  to  forty-seven — I  could  not  correct  the 
style  or  modify  the  tone  of  them,  without  re-writing  the  whole ;  a  task 
rendered  impossible  by  numerous  and  engrossing  occupations.  As 
some  of  them  were  written  as  far  back  as  twenty  years,  it  is  but  natural 
to  suppose  that  they  occasionally  exhibit  more  spirit  and  heat  in  argu¬ 
ment,  than  the  cooler  temper  and  riper  taste  of  advancing  years  would 
fully  approve.  While  I  am  free  to  make  this  acknowledgment,  justice 
to  my  own  convictions  and  feelings  requires  me  to  state,  that  in  regard 
t;o  the  facts  alleged,  I  have  nothing  to  retract  or  even  materially  to 
modify,  and  that  in  the  tone  and  temper  I  do  not  even  now  believe,  that 
I  set  down  ought  in  malice,  or  with  any  other  than  the  good  intent  of 
correcting  error  and  establishing  truth,  without  assuming  the  aggres-  • 
sive,  except  for  the  sake  of  what  I  believed  to  be  the  legitimate  defense 
of  the  Church  of  God. 

Such  as  these  papers  are,  they  are  again  offered  to  an  impartial 
public,  with  an  earnest  wish,  that  they  may  not  prove  wholly  unprofit¬ 
able  to  the  cause  of  historic  truth  and  of  true  Religion. 

Baltimore,  Easier  Monday,  1836. 

J 

Announcement  of  a  New  Edition. 

Archbishop  Spalding  had  intended  to  issue  a  complete  and  uniform  edition  of 
all  his  works ;  and  he  was  occupied  with  this  task  when  his  last  illness  came  upon  him. 
The  new  and  revised  edition  of  the  History  OF  the  Reformation,  the  Evidences 
OF  Catholicity,  and  the  Miscellanea,  which  is  now  offered  to  the  Public,  was 
prepared  by  Archbishop  Spalding  himself — the  corrections  and  additions  being  from 
his  own  hand.  To  the  Evidences  of  Catholicity,  as  the  reader  will  perceive,  he  has 
added  his  Pastoral^  Letter  on  the  Infallibility  of  the  Pope;  and  to  the  History  of  the 
Reformation,  he  has  appended  an  Article  entitled :  Rome  and,  Geneva. 

The  Li.fe  of  Bishop  Flaget  ahd  the  Sketches  of  Kentucky,  which  Archbishop  Spalding  intended  to 
re-write  and  piiblLsh  in  one  volume,  are  not  contained  in  the  present  edition  of  his  works,  since 
the  corrections  and  additions,  which  it  had  been  his  purpose  to  make,  are  incomplete. 

Baltimore,  Sept.  8, 1875, 


4 


CONTENTS. 


pR££jlC5,  ....  .  V 

INRODUCTORY  ADDRESS. 

An  intolerant  spirit  invoked  against  Catholics — Bigotry  an  implacable  monster— The  danger  of 
fostering  the  mob  spirit — Features  in  the  present  anti-Catholic  crusade — Cruel  treatment  of  a 
Catholic  priest — Our  adversaries  virtually  yielding  us  the  victor}'  in  fair  argument— Their  numerous 
inconsistencies — The  Newark  outrage — The  manliness  of  the  American  character — Whence  danger 
is  to  be  apprehended  to  the.Ilepublic  — The  “bats  and  the  eagles” — Hoping  for  better  things — The 
accusations  against  us— Is  the  Catholic  Church  intolerant? — Or  uncharitable? — Latitudinarianism, 
not  charity— Principles  of  the  Church  in  regard  to  persecution— Has  she  ever  persecuted  as  a 
Church? — Third  canon  of  Lateran — The  Inquisition — John  Huss — Catholic  and  Protestant  perse¬ 
cution  since  the  reformation — Intolerance  in  America — Who  originated  it,  and  who  gave  the  first 
example  of  toleration  ?— Parallel  between  Catholic  and  Protestant  countries  in  the  matter  of 
persecution— Are  Catholics  the  enemies  of  republican  government  ?— What  Catholicity  and  Pro¬ 
testantism  have  done  for  human  liberty— Charles  Carroll  of  Carrolton — Washington  and  the 
Catholics — The  temporal  power  of  the  Popes — Declarations  of  Archbishop  Carroll  and  the  American 
bishops — Letter  to  the  Pope — Are  American  Catholics  a  separate  community  ? — Archbishop  Carroll 
and  Bishop  Dubourg — Foreigners — What  they  have  done  for  the  country — “  The  foreign  vote” 

_ Foreign  radicals  and  infidels — The  naturalization  laws — The  common  school  system — What  the 

Catholic  Church  says  to  her  members— Her  efforts  to  promote  peace  and  order — Her  charity  fbr 
all  mankind — Archbishop  Kenrick’s  Pastoral.  .......  .  xvii 


VOL.  I.  — PART  I.  HISTORICAL. 

I.  CHUKCH  HISTORY.— THE  EARLY  AGES. 

"alma  and  Palmer  as  historians — Rome  and  Oxford — Gratuitous  assertions — Promises  of  Christ  in 
favor  of  the  church — Essential  and  Non-essential  doctrines — Bishop  W'hittingham — Puseyism — 
Palmer’s  division — I’urity  of  early  church — The  Age  of  persecution — Donatists— Striking  avowal — 
Peter  in  Rome  The  “Thundering  Legion”— arcani — Testimonies  of  Saints  Ignatius 
and  Justin  on  Holy  Kucharist — Cases  of  Popes  Victor  and  Stephen — The  Primacy— St.  Irenteus — 
The  Cross  of  Constantine — Early  hereisies — Church  of  Rome— Story  of  Liberius  and  of  Honorius  1. 
—Monastic  Life — Holy  Virginity — Nestorius— St.  Cyril  of  Alexandria — St  Patrick — Eariy  British 
churches — Primitive  Irish  churche8--St.  Simeon  Stylites — “Rank  Popery” — Early  “abuses  and 
corruptions” — Wisdom  of  the  Church — The  Seventh  and  Eighth  General  Councils.  17 

II.  CHURCH  HISTORY.— THE  MIDDLE  AGES. 

A  different  division  suggested— Triumphs  of  the  Church  over  barbarism — Missionaries  sent  by  Rome 

— The  Ages  of  Faith — Auricular  Confession — Testimonies  of  Tertullian  and  St.  Cyprian Necta- 

rius  and  the  Penitentiary — 1‘useyite  view  of  the  Holy  Eucharist — Paschasius  Kadbert  and 
Berengarius— Temporal  authority  of  the  Pope  and  Bishops — Decretals  of  Isidore — Prerogatives  of 
the  Roman  Pontiffs — Pope  Julius  I. — Greek  Schism — Order  of  pre-emiuence — Michael  Cerularius 
— Shaving  the  beard — The  Nicene  Canons — Edifying  incident  of  St  Anselm — Modern  .Anglican 
parsons — Vision  of  “  Roman  attempts  at  usurpation” — Have  the  promises  of  Christ  failed  ? — The 
Roman  Primacy  acknowledged  by  the  early  Greek  Church — And  at  Councils  of  Lyons  and  Florence 
— When  was  the  doctrine  of  the  Primacy  defined  ? — Purgatory — Transubstantiatiou — Indulgeuces 
— Protestant — Penitential  works— Repudiating  the  debt — The  Rosary — “The  pure  and 
holy  One” — Temporal  power  of  the  Pope — Its  influence  on  civilization.  37 

III.  CHURCH  HISTORY.— SINCE  THE  REFORMATION 

Necessity  of  calm  impartiality — Protestant  and  Catholic  views  of  Reformation — Wickliffe  and  Huss 

Oriental  languages— Foreign  and  British  reformation — Luther  and  Carlostadt— Curious  unachroii. 

ism — Luther  and  Episcopacy — Anglican  branch  of  the  reformation— “  Scruples  of  Henry  VIII.” _ 

The  new  Gospel  light— The  Anglican  Pope— Royal  prerogative  predominant— Cromwell  Vicar 

.  (') 


8 


CONTENTS 


General— Base  servility  of  first  Anglican  Bishops — ^Fisher  and  Moore — Burning  Protestants  and 
Catholics— Palmer’s  theory  of  Anglican  reformation  examined — Downright  tyranny— Trait  of  noble 
independence — Edward  VI. — Married  clergy — Improvements  of  Anglican  liturgy — Return  to  unity 
under  Wary — Bull  of  St.  Pius  V. — Henry’s  divorce— Reformation  in  Ireland — How  the  Anglican 
church  was persecuted'm  Ireland — Dr.  Lingard’s  testimony  and  proofs — Anglican  saints— Ridley — 
Macaulay’s  portrait  of  Cranmer — A  parallel — Infidelity  of  Protestant  origin — Anglican  infidels — 
Suppression  of  Anglican  convocation — Church  and  state — Where  Voltaire  learned  infidelity — 
Infidels  in  Protestant  Europe— French  clergy  during  the  Revolution — Did  the  French  Revolution 
make  any  Protestant  martyrs  ? — Conclusion,  -  --  -  .....57 


IV.  LITERATURE  AND  THE  ARTS  IN  THE  MIDDLE  AGES. 

Importance  of  the  subject — Writers  who  have  treated  it — Division— A  Colossus  falling— Incursions 
of  the  Northmen — A  deluge — Beautiful  Italy — Awful  devastation — New  dynasties — Christianity 
triumphant  over  barbarism — Civilization — Idterary  history — Tenth  century — Gradual  revival — Its 
causes — Golden  age  of  Leo  X. — Latin  language  in  liturgy — And  the  Monastic  institute — Elevation 
of  woman — Modern  languages — And  poetry — Paper — Art  of  Printing — Illuminated  manuscripts — 
Universities — Schools  of  Law  and  Medicine — Musical  Notes— Organs — Bells— Mariner’s  compass — 
Geographical  discoveries — Commerce — First  Bank — Post  Office— Newspapers — Spectacles— Gun¬ 
powder — Stone  coal — Arithmetical  numbers — Algebra — Glass— Stained  Glass — Agriculture — Botany 
— Clocks — Painting  revived — Silk  introduced — Gothic  style  of  Architecture — Leaning  tower  of 
Pisa — Conclusion,  -  --  -  ..........  .  -77 


V.  LITERATURE  AND  THE  CATHOLIC  CLERGY.— LIBRARIES. 

Modern  history  unfair — A  great  conspiracy  against  the  truth — Whence  this  unfairness  in  English 
writers — Robbery  and  sacrilege— Origin  of  modern  mammonism — Persecution  of  slander — What 
Protestants  have  said  in  favor  of  the  Monk.s — l.<eibnitz — Ellendorf — Edmund  Burke — Raising  up 
the  lowly — Giving  asylum  to  the  oppressed — Bishop  Tanner— Mallet — Drake — Sharon  Turner — 
Bates — Quarterly  Review — Origin  of  Libraries — Ancient  Christian  Libraraes — Cathedral  and  Mo¬ 
nastic  Libraries — Monks  transcribing  boobs — And  collecting  them  into  Libraries — Care  of  books 

enjoined  by  rule — Zeal  of  Monks  in  saving  books — Principal  monastic  collections  of  Manuscripts _ 

Scarcity  of  books— Agency  of  the  Universities— Religious  women  engaged  as  copyists — Writing 
with  golden  and  silver  ink — Illuminated  margins— The  Scriptorium~}ilf:&na  of  augmenting  Libra¬ 
ries — Encouragement  afforded  by  Roman  Pontiffs — What  we  owe  to  patient  Monastic  labor — Sum¬ 
mary  of  what  the  Clergy  and  Monks  have  done  for  Literature,  gg 

I 

VI.  SCHOOLS  AND  UNIVERSITIES  IN  THE  “  DARK”  AGES., 

Protestant  boasting — Light  and  darkness— Revival  of  letters  and  the  Reformation— Early  and  recent 
persecution  of  slander  compared — Gibbon — Protestant  theory — Lame  argument— E’ai-lv  Christian 
Schools — Plato  and  Aristotle— Irish  Schools— And  Irish  Scholars — Cathedral  Schools— Charle¬ 
magne  and  Alfred — Councils  ordering  the  erection  of  Schools — The  Monasteries— And  monastic 
Schools — VV’^hat  was  therein  taught — Schools  for  the  nobility — Signing  in  cipher — Female  Academics 
— Literary  ladies— Universities — In  Italy — England— And  France — Statement  of  Danielo  examined 
— Curious  incident  hi  the  history  of  the  University  of  Paris— Three  qualities  of  mediaeval  Schools 
and  Universities  stated  and  established — Who  first  founded  Free  Schools? — Glance  at  modoru 
Universities.  -  113 


VII.  INFLUENCE  OF  CATHOLICITY  ON  CIVIL  LIBERTY. 

Terms  defined — What  is  liberty? — Which  is  the  best  form  of  government? — Direct  and  indirect  influ¬ 
ence — Tendency  of  Christian  teaching — Division  of  the  subject — Theoretical  view — Equalizing  the 
social  condition — Form  of  Church  government — A  happy  blending  of  different  elements — The 
elective  principle- Deliberative  assemblies— Authority  of  the  Pope — Practical  influence  of  the 
Church — In  the  early  ages — In  the  middle  ages — Rescuing  Europe  from  barbarism — Means  em¬ 
ployed  for  humanizing  society — Two  Protestant  testimonies — Slavery  and  the  serf  system— Struggle 
between  the  Cross  and  the  Crescent — The  Crusades  -  Their  influence  ou  the  social  condition — The 
Free  Cities — In  Spain- In  Germany — And  in  Italy — Lombard  League — Italian  Republics — Quelphs 
and  Ghibeilines — The  deposing  power — Republics  of  Sau  Marino  and  Andorra-  The  monastic  insti¬ 
tute— Teaching  of  mediaeval  theologians — Magna  Charta — William  Wallace,  Robert  Bruce,  and 
William  Tell — Influence  of  the  reformation  on  liberty — In  Germany — And  in  England — Catholic 
patriots  during  the  American  revolution — Conclusion,  -  -  131 


CONTENTS. 


9 


Vlll.  AGE  OF  POPE  GREGORY  VII.— THE  DEPOSING  POW  ER. 

[mportance  of  the  subject — Society  struggling  into  form — Hildebrand — Ilis  cotemporaries — Histori¬ 
cal  portraits  and  parallels — Napoleon’s  opinion  of  Gregory  VII. — How  the  Pontiff  lia.s  been  attacked 
by  his  enemies — And  how  defended  by  Voigt— The  great  idea  of  Gregory — His  relaiious  to  society 
as  its  spiritual  head — A  torrent  of  abuse  stemmed — The  question  of  investitures — Ancient  mode 
of  nominating  to  bishoprics — Contest  between  the  Popes  and  the  emperors  of  Germany — Papal 
election — A  vital  question — St.  Peter  Damian — His  relations  to  Gregory— Simony  and  disorder 
among  the  clergy — Hildebrand  unanimously  elected  Pope — His  earlier  career — Hi.s  experience, 
coolness,  and  wisdom — Not  exceedingly  stern — His  wonderful  activity — His  correspondence— His 
moral  courage— Ilis  temporal  relations  to  society — Distracted  state  of  Europe— Princes  swearing 
fealty  to  the  Pope — His  protectorate  recognized  and  invoked — Gregory  not  ambitious— His  long 
struggle  with  Henry  IV. — The  Nero  of  the  twelfth  century — Otto  of  Nordheim — Summary  of  tho 
whole  contest — Moderation  of  Gregory — How  and  why  the  Pontiff  declared  Henry  deposed — A  stroke 
for  liberty — Opinion  of  Voigt,  -  .  151 


IX.  THE  GREAT  SCHISM  OF  THE  WEST.— ROME  AND  AVIGNON. 

The  Reformers  before  the  Reformation — Itonnechose  and  D’Aubigne  compared — The  former  as  an 
historiun — Is  he  ingenuous  or  fair? — Inaccuracies — Scope  of  his  work — The  Schism  a  fiery  ordeal 
for  the  Church — From  which  she  came  forth  unscathed — Scandals  to  be  expected — Morality  of  the 
Popes — Origin  of  the  Schism — The  papacy  “  stooping  to  conquer” — Contest  between  Boniface  VIII. 
and  Philip  the  Fair — The  death  of  Boniface  and  election  of  his  successor — Intrigues  of  Philip— The 
Popes  reside  at  Avignon — Their  policy — Return  to  Rome — Election  of  Urban  VI. — Defection  of  Car¬ 
dinals — They  set  up  Clement  VII. — Who  moves  to  .Avignon — Political  ambition  of  princes— The  evil 
and  the  remedy  come  from  France — University  of  Paris — Council  of  Pisa — .And  of  Constance — 
Election  of  Martin  V. — End  of  the  Schism — Remarks— Triumph  of  the  Church  -  Relation  of  the 
Pope  to  a  general  council — Reforming  the  Church  “iu  its  head  and  members” — The  succession  not 
interrupted — Two  objections  answered — Church  emerged  from  the  Schism  stronger  than  ever — 
And  so  did  the  papacy,  169 

X.  JOHN  HUSS  AND  THE  HUSSITES.— THE  COUNCIL  OF  CONSTANCE. 

New  trials  lead  to  new  triumphs  of  the  Church — Character  of  John  Huss— A  traitor  in  the  camp — 
Seeking  popularity — Wickliffe  and  his  doctrines — These  necessarily  lead  to  civil  commotions — 
Translated  into  Bohemia — University  of  Prague — The  German  and  Bohemian  students— Carthage- 
nian  hatred  of  Rome — Writers  on  Huss  and  his  disciples — Persecution  no  Catholic  Nnet — Imperial 
laws  on  the  subject — AVhat  were  the  doctrines  of  Iluss? — And  what  their  influence  on  society? — 
What  means  did  he  adopt  to  spread  them? — Was  he  consistent? — Had  he  a  fair  trial  at  Constanoe? 
— Was  the  council  cruel  towards  him  ? — W ere  the  fathers  guilty  of  breach  of  faith  ? — Keeping  faith 
with  heretics — Case  of  Jerome  of  Prague — Horrible  exces.ses  of  the  Hussites — Ziska  ‘-of  the  Cup” 
— Pillage,  murder,  and  sacrilege — A  horrid  martial  instrument  of  music--A  dark  and  bloody 
monument  to  the  memory  of  Huss,  •  -  -  -  -  -  -  -  -  ^  -  -  191 

XI.  THE  SPANISH  INQUISITION.— PRESCOTT’S  VIEW. 

Interest  of  Spanish  history — Evils  arising  from  the  French  revolution — Can  Spain  become  Protestant' 

_ Prescott’s  Ferdinand  and  Isabella— His  character  as  an  historian— His  prejudices  — His  authorities 

on  the  Spanish  Inquisition — Who  was  Limborch? — His  reliability — Character  of  Llorente — Writers 
on  the  other  side — Prescott’s  view — His  statements  examined— Three  propositions  established — Was 
the  Spanish  Inquisition  a  religious  or  a  political  institution? — Its  origin  traced — A  parallel  case — 
Remarkable  testimony  of  Ranke — Tlie  alleged  cruelties  of  the  Inquisition — Are  they  exaggerated? 

_ Authority  of  Voltaire— Of  Bourgoing — And  of  Limborch — The  civil  and  ecclesiastical  courts — 

‘•Justice  and  Mercy” — Mod*  of  procedure — .Motive  for  secresy — Torture — .1  urisprudeiice  of  the 
{jjne _ In  what  court  was  the  final  decision  given? — Count  I’olnitz — English  and  Genevan  Inquisi¬ 
tion _ Was  counsel  allowed  the  accused? — Is  the  Ctitholic  Church  responsible  for  the  Spanish 

Inquisition  ?— Agency  of  the  Roman  Pontiffs — Their  efforts  to  restrain  cruelty — The  Portuguese 
Inquisition,  -  ^13 

XII.  THE  REFORMATION  IN  SWITZERLAND.— BERNESE  INTRIGUES. 

The  late  religious  war  in  Switzerland — Policy  of  Frtince  and  Austria — Intrigues  of  England— Char 
acter  of  the  war — Whence  the  liberties  of  Switzerland — Analogy  between  the  late  struggle,  ami 
that  preceding'  the  Reformation — Berne  the  center  of  operations — M.  de  Haller’s  point  of  view— 


10 


CONTENTS. 


His  charaoSjr  as  an  historian — His  authorities— Wavering  of  Berne — Tortuous  policy — Ilovf  she 
embraced  the  Reform — The  dear  and  the  pears — Treacherous  perjury  of  Berne— Zwinglian  Council 
— Its  decrees— lieligious  liberty  crushed — Riot  and  sacrilege — Proceedings  of  Bernese  commission¬ 
ers— Downright  tyranny — Tiie  minister  Farel — His  fiery  zeal — An  appalling  picture — A  parallel — 
Priests  hunted  down — Character  of  the  ministers— Avowal  of  Oapito — The  glorious  privilege  of 
private  judgment — How  consisteiit ! — Persecution  of  brother  Protestants — Drowning  the  Anabap¬ 
tists — Iteformation  in  Geneva — Rapid  summary  of  horrors — The  Rernese  army  of  invasion— The 
sword  and  the  Bible — Forbearance  of  Catholics— Affecting  incident  at  Soleure — The  war  of  Capped 
—  Points  of  resemblance — An  armed  apostle — A  prophet  quailing  before  danger — Battle  of  Capped 
— Death  of  Zwingle— Triumph  of  Catholic  cantons — Treaty  of  Peace,  ....  ^34 

XIII.  PKESCOTT’S  CONQUEST  OF  MEXICO. 

Article  /. — Character  of  the  Conquerors. 

Prescott  as  an  historian — Compared  with  other  .\merican  writers — His  style  and  manner — Qualities 
essential  to  an  historian — Prescott’s  research — His  authorities — His  accuracy — His  impartiality — 
His  religious  prejudices — The  ghost  of  the  Inquisition  haunts  him — His  gross  charges  against  the 
Catholic  Church — His  enthusiasm  awakened — Romantic  character  of  the  conquest — Rapid  sketch 
of  its  history — Character  of  the  conquerors — Hernando  Cortes — Compared  with  ancient  generals — 
Was  the  conquest  juslsfiable  ? — Principles  and  facts  hearing  on  this  question — Horrid  human  sacri¬ 
fices  among  the  Aztecs — The  Spaniards  and  the  Puritans  compared — M  ere  the  conquerors  wantoniy 
cruel?  Facts  and  specifications  alleged  and  explained— Palliating  circumstances — Seizure  of  Mon¬ 
tezuma — And  execution  of  Guatamoziu — Prescott’s  testimony — Spanish  conquest  of  Mexico  and 
English  conquest  of  India  compared — Cortes  and  Ixird  Clive — Macaulay,  ....  250 

XIV.  PRESCOTT’S  CONQUEST  OF  MEXICO.  ^ 

Article  II. —  The  Religious  Point  of  View  of  the  Conquest. 

Religious  point  of  view  necessary — Noble  sentiment  of  Lope  de  Vega — Spaniards  much  influenced  by 
it — Prescott’s  testimony — The  Spanish  cavalier,  a  soldier  of  the  Cross — Injustice  done  his  character 
by  Prescott — The  age  of  chivalry  compared  with  the  present — Motives  which  actuated  Catholic  and 
Protestant  navigators  and  pioneers — A  holy  Crusade — Religious  character  of  Cortes — His  standard 
— Stirring  address  to  his  soldiers — The  Cross  unfurled — And  animating  the  army -Zeal  for  the 
conversion  of  the  natives — Religious  rites  and  worship — Relative  adaptation  of  Catholic  and  Pro¬ 
testant  systems  for  making  proselytes — Prescott’s  theory  examined — Remarkable  incidents  showing 
the  piety  of  the  conquerors — Their  zeal  sometimes  too  fiery — Catholic  missionaries — They  oppose 
cruelty  to  the  natives — As  well  as  all  forced  conversions — Las  Casas  and  Olmedo— Alleged  intempe¬ 
rate  zeal  of  Cortes — Idols  cast  down — Explanation  and  defense — Charitable  zeal  of  Olmedo — Aqullar 
and  other  missionaries — Religious  ceremonies  on  launching  the  fleet — And  at  the  termination  of  the 
gie^e— Missionaries  after  the  Conquest — Destruction  of  the  Teocallis — Great  number  of  converts 
among  the  Aztecs— How  accounted  for— Prescott’s  theory— “  The  Aztec  wor.ship  and  Romish 
ritual  1”— Alleged  similarity  between  the  two— Curious  coincidences — Alleged  miracles — Loss  and 
gain  to  the  Church— Conclusioli,  -  276 

XV.  EARLY  CATHOLIC  MISSIONS  IN  THE  NORTH  WEST. 

First  Paper. — Bancroft's  Account. 

Bancroft  as  an  historian— An  old  Relation— C&ihoWc  missionary  zeal— Spirit  of  Catholic  and  Pro¬ 
testant  colonists  compared— M’ho  established  the  first  missions  in  North  America?— The  Franciscans 
and  Jesuits— The  first  Jesuit  missionaries— The  first  college— And  the  first  hospital— The  Ursulines 
in  Canada — The  mission  to  the  Ilurons — Fathers  De  Brebeuf  and  Daniel— Their  manner  of  life — 
The  chief  .Ahasistari — Mission  to  the  Algonquins — And  to  the  I'hippewas — “The  New  England 
Elliott”— Father  Jogues— And  Father  Bressani— Mission  among  the  Abenakis— .Mohawks— Onou- 
dagas— And  Cavugas— Extent  of  the  missions— Penetrating  westward— Father  Marquette— His 
death— Subsequent  history  of  the  Jesuit  missions— Policy  of  England,  -  -  -  298  . 

XVI.  EARLY  CATHOLIC  MISSIONS  IN  THE  NORTH  WEST. 

Second  Paper. —  The  Huron  Mission. 

4  beautiful  spectacle — Reclaiming  the  savage — Details  of  the  Mission  among  theHurons — The  nation 
of  Christians — An  Indian  council — .A  touching  incident — A  picture  of  primitive  fervor — Edifying 
anecdotes — Triumphs  of  grace — .\ttajck  of  the  Huron  villages — Father  Daniel — His  glorious  mar- 


t^rdom — TIis  virtues — Another  attack  by  the  Iroquois— Heroic  conduct  of  Fathers  de  Brebeuf  and 
I-alleiiient — They  are  made  prisoners — Devoted  ness  of  their  neophytes — The  glories  of  the  Huron 
Mission  scattered.  211 


XVII.  EARLY  CATHOLIC  MISSIONS  IN  THE  NORTH  WEST. 

Third  Paper — Fathers  De  Brebeuf  and  Lallement. 

dartyrdom  of  Fathers  de  Brebeuf  and  Lallement — Their  remains  solemnly  interred — Their  heroism 
— Details  of  their  martyrdom — Horrible  cruelties — Life  of  Father  Lallement — His  reasons  for 
devoting  himself  to  the  Indian  missions — The  Aloysius  of  the  Huron  missions — And  the  Xavier — 
Father  John  De  Bi-ebeuf — Sketch  of  his  life — His  first  attempt  to  found  the  Huron  missioji — 
Ilis  ardent  zeal — And  spirit  of  prayer — His  love  of  the  cross — He  pants  for  martyrdom — His  diffl- 
culries  and  sufferings  among  the  Hurons — He  is  exposed  to  imminent  danger  of  his  life — His 
humility — His  unceasing  labors — His  calmness — And  noble  courage — The  results  of  his  zeal — The 
Apostle  of  the  Hurons,  -  322 

XVIII.  WEBSTER’S  BUNKER  HILL  SPEECH. 

Relative  Treatment  of  the  American  Aborigines  by  the  English  and  Spanish  Colonists. 

Mr.  Webster  as  an  orator — Compared  with  Preston,  Calhoun,  and  Clay — Mr.  Webster’s  omissions — 
His  drift — K  sound  principle — But  inconclusive  reasoning — Different  policy  adopted  by  Eng-lish 
and  Spanish  colonists — “  The  Anglo  Saxon  blood” — A  parallel  case — Cause  of  aversion  to  Spain — 
The  reformation  of  Luther — Its  influence  on  liberty—”  The  middle  class” — Luther  and  the  peasants 
— Protestant  opinions — Religious  element  in  Spanish  colonization — Irving’s  testimony — Portu¬ 
guese  colonists — Catholic  and  Protestant  navigators — Who  introduced  slavery? — Alleged  cruelties 
of  the  Spaniards— Las  Casas — Cruelties  practi.sed  by  the  Puritans — Their  treatment  of  the  Aborigi¬ 
nes — The  Pokanokets — Shrewd  bargaining — King  Philip — The  Narragansetts— Their  extermination 
— The  Pequods — ”  The  godly  Stone” — A  horrible  conflagration— Settling  accounts — “A  dark  shade 
on  the  soil  of  .Massachusetts,^’  -  ..........  333 

^  XIX.  OUR  COLONIAL  BLUE  LAWS. 

Article  I. — Union  of  Church  and  State. 

Why  we  treat  this  subject — Who  are,  and  who  have  been  the  persecutors? — Meaning  of  the  term 
Blue  Laws — Effort  at  concealment — Bancroft’s  reserve — Other  historians  of  New  England — Charac¬ 
ter  of  the  Puritans — Their  good  and  their  bad  qualities — Their  treatment  of  the  Aborigines — Their 
inconsistency — Two  classes  of  Blue  l.aws — Union  of  Church  and  Stare— Conformity — The  franchise 
— Established  religion  — Observance  of  the  Sabbath — Severe  enactments — Law  against  priests — 
Spirit  of  per.secution  in  New  York — Miscellaneous  laws — Indians  and  wolves — Use  of  tobacco — 
Planner  of  dress — Cut  of  the  hair — Matrimony — And  divorce — By  whom  were  the  Blue  Laws 
repealed? — Some  Blue  liaws  of  Virginia — The  land  of  “steady  habits” — Catholic  Colony  of 
Maryland  -  368 


XX.  OUR  COLONIAL  BLUE  LAWS. 

Article  II. — Heretics,  Quakers,  and  Witches. 

Two  characteristics  of  the  Puritans — Scenting  out  heresy  and  witchcraft— Preaching  and  practice  - 
Consistency — Winch  colony  deserves  the  palm— Roger  Williams— His  principles  and  banishment 
—  Laws  against  Quakers— How  executed — A  strong  protest— How  answered— Persecution  avowed 
and  proved  from  the  Bible— Witchcraft  in  New  England— Why  so  prevalent  there— Exposition  of 
Cotton  Mather — Shrewdness  of  the  witches — How  they  were  exterminated— “  Eight  firebrands  of 
hell”  Hanging  first,  and  trying  afterwards— Humorous  passage  from  Irving,  ...  369 

VOL.  II.  — PART  II.  THEOLOGICAL. 

XXI.  THE  SPIRIT  OP  THE  AGE. 

Temporal  and  Eternal, 

Is  this  an  eniitrhtened  age? — Enlightenment  and  empiricism— Material  progress— Constant  agitation 
and  fever— Rest  and  motion  — Self  complacency— Two  classes  of  extravagance  pointed  out— And 
Blubtrated— Doctrine  of  pr'gress  applied  to  religion— Degradimi  religion  to  an  earthly  standard  — 


12 


CONTENTS. 


Reason  and  faith— Incident  related  by  St.  .4ngustiiie— Ueasoninw  backwards- A  tower  of  Habel— 
Modern  systems  of  ptiilo.sophy — I'nie  and  false  liberty — Kvil.s  growing  out  of  sectarianism — (larrj  • 
ingout  a  false  principle  -  Private  judgment — Tne  great  struggle  and  its  final  issue —  Protestantism 
and  enlightenntent — .\merican  infidelity  —  l-’arailel  lines  of  reasoning  adopted  by  the  sects  and 
by  infidels — Ftuiaticism  and  infidelity  —  Mammonism — .Money  and  virtue — Mammon  worship  in 
churche.s — Utilitarianism — \Vr')ng  views  of  education — Religious  indifference  and  latitudinariauisin 
— Frightful  moral  disorders — Fruits  of  Protestantism — The  great  problem  of  the  age,  -  383 


XXII.  THE  CHAEGE  OP  IDOLATRY. 

Honor  and  Invocation  of  Saints, 

The  curve  and  the  straight  line— The  issue  of  the  Puseyite  movement — Its  benefits — Origin  of  the 
controver.sy  concerning  Idolatry  in  the  Oatholic  (’hurch— Palmer  and  Dr.  Wiseman — Charge  by  tho 
former — How  met  by  the  latter — Palmer's  criterion  applied  against  himself — Ilis  line  of  reasoning 
unfair — Three  propositions  laid  down — And  proved — I'atholic  doctrine  stated— Testimony  by  the 
Council  of  Trent — The  Missal  and  the  I'.reviary  —  Why  are  the  Saints  honf)red  and  invoked? — 
Passage  from  the  late  Pope's  encyclical  letter  explained — Guardian  angels — Objected  passages 
explain  themselves — Prayer  of  Cardinal  Bona— Incident  in  the  life  of  St.  Alphonsus  I.iguori — St. 
Francis  di  Girolamo — The  Pope's  encyclical  again — Pfilmer’s  Italic.s — The  climax  of  Idolatry- 
Coldness  and  enthusitism  in  devotion — The  devotion  to  the  Virgin  —  Beautiful  passage  of  Ur.  Wise¬ 
man —  Possible  abuse  no  argument— Palmer’s  inconsistency — Passages  from  the  ancient  fathers — 
IIow  he  explains  them  —  Ilis  glaring  perversion  of  authorities  — His  work  of  supererogation — Faith 
and  practice  of  the  early  Church— Beau."y  and  sublimity  of  the  Catholic  doctrine — Devotion  to  the 
Virgin — A  golden  chain,  ...  ..........  397 


XXIII.  THE  CATHOLIC  DOCTRINE  OF  SATISFACTION. 

Faith  and  Works. 

Harmony  of  Catholic  doctrines — Their  scope  and  influence— The  great  Physician — His  religion  medi¬ 
cinal — The  doctrine  of  iraMsfaction  intimately  connected  with  that  of  the  Atonement — Standing  at 
the  foot  of  the  cross  — The  cenrer  of  the  religious  system — Source  of  light  and  heat — The  Atonemen'^ 
sufficient — And  made  for  all — Our  co-operation  necessary  for  its  application  to  us— Denying  our¬ 
selves  and  entering  into  the  sacrificial  spirit  of  Christ — Scriptural  proofs — Practice  of  the  saints— 
Motive  for  corportil  austerities — I’he  cros.s  ever  present  to  the  Chri.^titin  mind — The  sacrifice  of  the 
altar  and  that  of  the  Cross — Protestant  view  of  the  Atonement  — Faith  and  works — Halting  half 
way — The  more  comfortable  and  the  safer  way  —  (  austic  passage  of  Tertullian — Two  roads  to 
heaven — Palmer’s  view — His  arguments  superficial  and  captious — Temporal  puni.shment  for  sin 
already  forgiven — Scriptural  examples  — Palmer’s  explanation  ofthem  refuted — His  paltry  quibbling 
— Charge  of  absurdity  answered — Reasons  for  the  temporal  penalty  remaining — Palmer  grows 
pathetic — Troubling  the  peace  of  consciences — Unearthly  character  of  the  doctrine — The  blessings 
it  has  produced,  -  ....  .  ....  418 


XXIV.  THE  CONFESSIONAL. 

Tactics  of  its  Enemies. 

Strong  presumptive  evidence  of  Catholicity — The  proud  position  of  the  Church — Phases  of  the 
warfare  against  her— Appeal  to  passion  against  truth — Luther’s  tactics — Those  of  other  reformers 
similar — Protestant  and  infidel  arguments  against  Catholicity  compared — The  vilest  of  all  the 
modes  of  attack— Closing  the  church  against  ladies — Books  teeming  with  obscenity — A  burning 
shame  for  Christian  ministers — Sympathy  with  infidels — Who  was  Slichelet? — .\n  amusing  inci¬ 
dent— Translator  of  Michelet — A  horrid  picture  of  woman— Mohammedanism  revived — .Methodist 
camp-meetings — A  '‘female  Jesuit’’ — Incarnation  of  Satan” — Transcendentalism — .A  rare  conso¬ 
lation! — “French  bulls” — Inconsistency  and  contradiction — Michelet  as  an  historian  and  logician 
— His  premises  false— And  his  reasoning  illogical — Blindness  of  bigotry — The  serpent  in  paradise — 

A  portrait — “The  end  justifies  the  means” — Great  honor  to  the  Church — The  beams  and  the  mote 
—  The  confe.ssioual  considered  by  the  light  of  experience  — A  palpable  absurdity — A  gross  libel  upon  ' 
the  sex — Course  adopted  by  the  Protestant  preachers — Extracts  from  our  theologians — Parallel 
«ases — “  Whipping  hypocrisy” — IVhence  all  the  clamor  acainst  the  Confessional — Did  the  priesU 
introduce  it? — What  motive  could  they'  have  had? — ^Vas  it  pjssible  to  make  the  change? — 
The  question  of  innovation  tested — History  appealed  to — Prescription — Our  Saviour  and  the 
Pharisees,  ----  .  ...  435 


CONTENTS 


O 


VOL.  II.  — PART  III.  MISCELLANEOUS. 

XXV.  CATHOLIC  AND  PROTESTANT  COUNTRIES. 

Article  I. — England  and  France — Holland  and  Belghim. 

ttifluenee  of  Catholicity  and  Protestantism  on  material  interests — Current  theory — The  aritumeni 
wholly  inconclusive — And  the  facts  assumed,  hut  not  proved — England’s  prosperity — How  e.xplained 
— Rise  and  decline  cf  Catholic  powers — Why  God  permits  the  wicked  to  prosper — Masses  of  Eng¬ 
land’s  population — Catholic  Ireland — England  imd  France  compared — In  which  is  the  bulk  of  the 
people  more  comfortable? — laying’s  argument — French  and  English  honesty  and  politeness — Hol¬ 
land  and  Relgium  compared — Belgian  railroads — Charity  in  Catholic  and  Protestant  countries — 
Condition  of  the  poor — Relative  prosperity  of  the  Catholic  and  Protestant  population  of  Prussia — 
The  serf  system  — How  long  it  lingered  in  Protestant  countries — Who  have  been  the  best  friends  and 
champions  of  the  poor  and  oppressed  ?••  ........  455 

XXVI  CATHOLIC  AND  PROTESTANT  COUNTRIES. 

Article  II. — Germany  and  Italy. 

The  Catholic  and  Protestant  cantons  of  Switzerland — “enlightened  self-interest” — Why  the 
Protestant  catitons  aremore  prosperous — Material  condition  of  Catholic  Italy — Italian  and  Scotch 
holy  days— Mr.  Laing’s  theory  for  explaining  the  alleged  social  inferiority  of  the  Italians — Italy  in 
ancient  and  modern  times— Influence  of  climate  on  popular  industry  and  activity — The  Italian 
poor  compared  with  those  of  England  and  Ireland — Mr  I/aing’s  testimony — The  garden-like  culture 
of  Italy — Comparative  cheerfulness  of  Protestant  sind  Catholic  nations — Taste  for  the  fine  arts — 
Politeness — Temperance  — Testimony  of  Robert  Dale  Owen — Comparative  morality — Moral  condi¬ 
tion  of  Sweden — Popular  education  in  Catholic  and  Protestant  countries — The  common  school 
system  in  Au«tria — Liberal  policy— Relative  instruction  of  English  and  Belgian  operatives— The 
Prussian  common  school  system — Religious  condition — State  of  religion  at  Geneva — Deplorable 
defection — Protestantism  in  other  European  countries— Mr.  Laing’s  theory  to  account  for  the 
admitted  religious  superiority  of  Catholic  nations  examined — Ills  honorable  testimony  to  Catholic 
faith  and  piety,  -  -  ............  472 

XXVII.  Cx\THOLIC  AND  PROTESTANT  COUNTRIES. 

Article  III. — England^  as  she  is  and  was. 

English  boasting — What  is  the  condition  of  her  people?— Has  her  greatness  elevated  the  masses  of 
her  population? — A  land  of  social  conrrasta— English  pauperism  a  crime — Frightful  condition  of 
English  operatives — Summary  of  evidence  on  the  subject  -llow  England  relieves  her  poor— The 
work  houses— The  dying  pauper— Testimony  of  Dr.  ifouthey— No  liberty  for  the  poor  in  England 
— Iinmoraliry  of  London  — The  Anglican  esiablishment— England  evangelizing  the  world  I — The 
English  ari.sfocracy — Brou.:haiii  on  English  taxation — Mammonism  in  England  and  America — 
Portiait  of  Daniel  O’Connell,  -  492 

XXVIII.  CATHOLIC  AND  PROTESTANT  COUNTRIES. 

Article  IV. — Ireland  and  the  Irish. 

The  great  day  of  reckoning— An  historical  parallel — Ireland  still  unconquered — Un-American 
feeling  of  hostility  to  foreigners— Are  we  really  independent  of  England? — Political  nativism- 
Whatliave  foreigners  done  for  the  country  ? — Why  Irishmen  are  hated— The  Iri.sh  character— It« 
lights  and  shades — English  treatment  of  Ireland — The  first  period  of  Ireland’s  suffering.s — Protes¬ 
tant  evidence — The  second  period— The  reformation  in  Ireland— Irish  fidelity  to  the  ancient  faith 
— Policy  of  Elizabeth  and  the  Stuarts — VV’holesale  confiscation  and  butchery — The  men  of  1782- 
The  Union- Protestant  a.sceudency — Emancipation,  ........  5()() 


XXIX.  CATHOLIC  AND  PROTESTANT  COUNTRIES. 

Article  V. — Italian  Society. 

Dickens  and  Kip— Superficial  travelers — Writing  for  money — Lady  tourists— License  for  gossiping— 
Character  of  Dickens  as  a  writer — Baretti  and  Sharp — Italian  contentment. — Two  extremes  to  b« 
avoided  in  the  social  condition — Material  comforts- Difiference  between  the  Italians  and  Americans 
— Laboring  classes  in  Italy — Italian  squalor— Mode  of  life  among  Italians- Their  sprig htliness- 


14 


CONTE  NT  S 


Vivaciry  of  children — Italians  a  social  people — Their  amusements — Gambling— Horse  races  among 
them  and  us  compared — Profane  swearing — Temperance — General  use  of  wine — Its  effects  on  tem 
perance  and  health — Politeness — Meekness  amotig  the  great — Training  of  children  in  Italy — A 
gross  charg  •  against  Italian  morality  refuted— The  fashion  of  employing  Cavalieri  Serventi-  -IIow 
jt  originated,  . . .  ^23 


XXX.  CATHOLIC  AND  PROTESTANT  COUNTRIES. 

Article  VI. — Brazil  and  the  Brazilians. 

Interest  of  the  subject — Qualifications  for  an  impartial  traveler— Misrepresenting  Catholic  doctrine* 
and  practices — Missionary  tourists — Mr.  Kidder’s  misstatements — The  llrazilians  adoring  images — 
Absurd  blunders — Fire-works  on  the  “Sabbath” — Service  of  the  holy  week — Decoration  of  lira- 
zilian  churches — Religious  emblems  and  names — Our  Lady  of  the  Snow — Homicides  in  Brazil  and 
among  us— Distributing  tracts — A  bright  youth — The  Bible  in  Brazil- Extracts  from  it  read  iu 
the  public  schools — “The  Bible  never  proscribed  in  Brazil” — Inquisitorial  censorship — A  trick  of 
the  Bible  society — The  Brazilians  liberal  and  tolerant— The  Catholic  clergy — Slavery  in  Brazil — 
Touching  practices  of  piety  among  the  slaves  — The  religious  Brotherhoods — The  charity  hospital 
at  Rio — Is  there  any  native  parry  iu  Brazil  ?— Failure  of  Mr.  Kidder’s  mission— His  return  home — 
Advantages  of  clerical  celibacy,  -  ...  53g 

XXXI.  THE  ORIENTAL  CHURCHES. 

Dr.  Durbin's  Observations  in  the  East. 

The  present  struggle  in  the  East — The  ancient  Episcopal  Ijees  — Alexandria— Antioch — Jerusalem— 
Constantinople- Statistics  of  the  eastern  and  western  churches  in  the  early  ages — Ancient  glory 
and  present  degradation  of  the  Oriental  Churches — picture  of  desolation — .A  vast  necropolis — 
Decrease  of  population — Testimonies  of  Dr  Frankland  and  Dr.  Durbin — Number  of  Christians  in 
the  Turkish  empire — Chastisement  inflicted  on  the  Greek  schismatics — Their  present  forlorn  con¬ 
dition — The  ouly  hope  for  their  restoration — Their  discipline  in  regard  to  the  celibacy  of  the  clergy 
— Their  acknowledged  itgreeinent  in  doctrine  with  the  Roman  Catholics — Argument  founded  thereon 
in  favor  of  the  Catholic  Church — Protestant  missionaries  in  the  Etist — Have  they  succeeded? — Dr. 
Durbin’s  admissions — Ilis  omissions  supplieil  in  regard  to  the  I’rorestant  missions  of  Hasbejaand 
Oroomiah  — Disunion  among  the  Protestant  missionaries — C.atholic  missions  in  the  East — Dr.  Dur¬ 
bin’s  candid  avowal — Statistics — The  seven  Apocalyptic  churches — The  church  of  Philadelphia- 
Downright  popery — Christiau  charity  recommended,  ........  554 


'  XXXII.  ROME, 

As  seen  by  a  New  Yorker. 

New  York  and  Rome — Superficial  books — Candid  avowal — Inaccuracies — Colonnade  in  front  of  Saiul 
Peter’s— The  ball  on  tbe  dome — St.  Mary  Major’s-  Popes  preserving  ancient  monuments — Italian 
Ciceroni — Tricks  on  travelers — “  The  t>  n.v-eyed  sculptor”— Laugiiable  mistakes — The  Jews  in  Rome 
— The  chair  of  St.  Peter — Religious  services  in  the  Colisseum — Rome  not  sufficiently  progressive — 
Picture  of  Rome  as  the  capital  of  Chiistendom  —  .Artistic  genius  of  Italy — Liberality  towards  foreign 
artists  Overbeck — Paintings  in  churches  — Roman  churches  never  closed  against  worshipers — 
Roman  charity — Beggars — Italian  wines — Valuable  suggestion — Italian  monks — The  Vatican — 
Villa  Borghese — Education  in  Rome — Pope  Gregory  XVI. — The  college  of  cardinals — General 
impression  made  by  Rome  on  our  New  Yorker,  .........  570 


XXXIII.  THE  PAPAL  GOVERNMENT. 

The  late  Homan  revolution — Character  of  Pius  IX  —His  measures  of  reform — How  received  by  his 
subjects — Base  ingratitude  —  Assassination  of  Rossi  and  Palma — .A  reign  of  terror — Zambianchi  and 
his  band  of  assassins — Mazzini  and  his  ideaof  liberty  —  Europe  indignant — The  Pontiff  re.-^tored  by 
the  Catholic  powers  — tVho.«e  fault  was  it  that  Pius  IX.  did  not  succeed  in  effecting  political  reform?  — - 
Monarchy  Sind  mob  rule— Origin  of  the  papal  states — Did  the  Popes  usurp  temporal  dominion? — 
Advantages  of  their  being  independent  sovereigns — Mr.  Headley’s  Outline  Sketch — Statistics 
of  the  papal  territory — The  government  an  elective  monarchy  —  How  the  administration  i.s  con 
ducted — Mr.  Headley’s  mistakes  and  omissions  — Board  to  redress  grievances— The  Sacra  Consulta — 
Municipal  regulations —Opinion  of  Lnnadoro— The  Sacra  Ruo’a— .An  incident — The  advocate  of 
the  poor — Charitable  and  educational  institutions  cherished  by  the  Papal  Government,  -  08c 


CONTENTS. 


15 


XXXIV.  THE  PHILADELPHIA  RIOTS. 

The  Native  American  Party, 

Dreadful  scenes — Will  tbey  occur  again?  —  Signs  of  the  times — Accident  and  choice — Foarlest 
Protestant  writers — Ijctter  to  Mayor  Harper — Remote  causes  of  the  Riots — Union  of  hatred — 
What  Catholicity  has  done  for  liberty  and  civilization — And  what  for  this  country — Real  and 
nominal  freedom — Forecast  of  Thomas  Jefferson — His  opinion — Glance  at  the  history  of  bigotry  in 
the  United  States — Burning  of  the  Ursuline  convent — Rev.  Lyman  Beecher — And  other  Protestant 
ministers — Maria  Monk— The  Protestant  Association — A  picture  of  its  spirit  and  proceedings 
drawn  by  a  Protestant — Immediate  causes  of  the  Riots — Native  Americans— “  Spare  the  Hible  ” — 
Doings  of  the  party — A  slander  refuted — True  State  of  the  case — Ex  parte  evidence — Attempt  to 
evade  responsibility — Agency  of  the  Protestant  ministers — Burke's  estimate  of  the  Catholic  clergy — 
Address  to  the  Protestant  coiftnunity — And  to  the  Catholics — The  Church  indestructible,  -  696 

XXXV.  A  CHAPTER  ON  MOBS, 

Ancient  and  Modern. 

Can  Mobs  put  down  truth  and  virtue?  —Nothing  new  under  the  sun — Historical  retrospect — Past 
trials  and  triumphs  of  the  Church— The  first  Mob  crucified  Christ— The  second  stoned  St.  Stephen 
— Mobs  during  the  first  three  centuries— Nero  the  first  instigator  of  them— Mobs  a  principal  feature 
in  the  early  persecutions — How  they  were  gotten  up — Persecution  of  slander — Forgery  — Early 
Christians  branded  as  aliens  and  traitors — Tertullian’s  pointed  sarcasm — Mob  spirit  contagious — 
The  great  Roman  Mob  under  Diocletian— St.  Basil’s  graphic  description — Sepulchral  monument  to 
Christianity — Fate  of  the  persecutors — Mobs  powerless — The  Cross  triumphant — Unalterable  meek¬ 
ness  of  early  Christians  under  persecution — Mobs  since  the  reformation — Are  they  not  similar  in 
spirit  to  those  directed  against  Christianity  during  the  first  three  centuries? — A  parting  word  to 


American  Catholics,  (^jg 

XXXVI.  LAFAYETTE  AND  PROFESSOR  MORSE, . 635 

XXXVII.  COMMON  SCHOOLS, . 652 

XXXVIII.  THE  ASTRONOMICAL  CLOCK  OF  STRASBURO,  -  -  -  685 

XXXIX.  THE  ORIGIN  AND  HISTORY  OF  LIBRARIES  IN  ANCIENT 

AND  MODERN  TIMES, . 696 

XL.  DEMONOLOGY  AND  THE  REFORMATION, . 710 

XLI.  REV.  WILLIAM  BYRNE,  729 

XLIL  THE  FEAST  OF  THE  ASSUMPTION, . 73d 

XLIII.  ROME  AND  BERLIN, . 74:) 


XLIV.  OUR  NEW  “AMERICAN'' LITERATURE, . 762 

XLV.  BENVENUTO  CELLINI, . 

XLVI.  ITALIAN  LIFE  AND  MORALS  — EFFECTS  OF  “ROMANISM” 

ON  SOCIETY,  - 


788 


INTRODUCTORY-  ADDRESS. 


1 


»  •  ■  • 


r 

r 


V  •  •  4 


S*  '  ”  *  •  ’  * ' 


f:' 


INTRODUCTORY  ADDRESS, 

Ca  tl)e  impartial  public; 

ON  THE  INTOLERANT  SPIRIT  OF  THE  TIMES. 


An  intolerant  spirit  invoked  against  Catholics — Bigotry  an  implacable  monster — The  danger  of 
fostering  the  mob  spirit. — Features  in  the  present  anti-Catholio  crusade — Cruel  treatment  of  a 
Catholic  priest — Our  adversaries  virtually  yielding  us  the  victory  in  fair  argument — Their  numerous 
inconsistencies — The  Newark  outrage — The  manliness  of  the  American  character — Whence  danger 
is  to  be  apprehended  to  the  Republic— The  “bats and  the  eagles” — Hoping  for  better  things — The 
accusations  against  us— Is  the  Catholic  Church  intolerant? — Or  uncharitable? — Latitudinarianism, 
not  charity— Principles  of  the  Church  in  regard  to  persecution— Has  she  ever  persecuted  as  a 
Church? — Third  canon  of  Lateran — The  Inquisition — John  Huss — Catholic  and  Protestant  perse¬ 
cution  since  the  reformation — Intolerance  in  America — Wlio  originated  it,  and  who  gave  the  first 
example  of  toleration?— Parallel  between  Catholic  and  Protestant  countries  in  the  matter  of 
persecution —  Are  Catholics  the  enemies  of  republican  government?— What  Catholicity  and  Pro¬ 
testantism  have  done  for  human  liberty— Charles  Carroll  of  Carrolton — Washington  and  the 
Catholics — The  temporal  power  of  the  Popes — Declarations  of  Archbishop  Carroll  and  the  American 
Bishops — Letter  to  the  Pope — Are  American  Catholics  a  separate  community  ? — Archbishop  arroll 
and  Bishop  Dubourg — Foreigners — What  they  have  done  for  the  country — “  The  foreign  vote” 
— Foreign  radicals  and  infidels — The  naturalization  laws — The  common  school  system — What  tha 
Catholic  Church  says  to  her  members — Her  efforts  to  promote  peace  and  order — Her  charity  for 
all  mankind — Archbishop  Kenrick’s  Pastoral. 

That  a  fierce  spirit  of  intolerance  has  been  lately  evoked  in  this  once 
free  country,  no  candid  observer  of  passing  events  will  deny.  Christians 
of  a  particular  denomination  have  been  selected,  as  its  first  victims  ;  but 
no  one  who  has  studied  human  nature,  as  it  is  developed  in  the  facts  of 
history,  will  for  a  moment  suppose,  that  the  ruin  of  Catholics  in  this 
country  will  satisfy  the  cravings  of  this  fierce  Moloch  of  religious  bigotry. 
As  with  the  tiger,  the  taste  of  blood  will  but  sharpen  its  appetite  for  new^ 
victims.  So  it  has  been  in  the  past  ;  so  it  will  be  in  the  future. 

Let  no  one  deceive  himself,  nor  suffer  himself  to  be  deceived,  in  a 
matter  of  so  vital  an  importance  to  all  who  are  sheltered  under  the  glorious 
llag  of  our  union.  Once  the  barriers,  which  our  noble  constitution 
throws  around  the  civil  and  religious  liberties  of  all  citizens  alike,  are 
broken  down,  no  matter  under  what  pretext  of  excitement,  of  political 
expediency,  or  necessity,  there  is  no  telling  where  the  spirit  of  innovation 
will  stop,  or  where  the  evils  consequent  upon  it  will  be  arrested.  When 
a  torrent  has  once  broken  through  the  embankment  along  its  margin,  it 
spreads  devastation  through  the  entire  country  ;  and  the  husbandman 
who  has  neglected  the  necessary  precautions,  while  it  was  yet  time,  finds 


XX 


INTRODUCTORY  ADDRESS. 


out,  when  it  is  too  late  for  remedy,  that  all  the  fruits  of  his  patient  toil 
liave  been  swept  away  or  destroyed  by  the  raging-  waters.  So  it  will  b« 
precisely,  should  the  checks  and  balances,  which  the  wisdom  and  forecast 
of  our  fathers  have  inserted  in  the  constitution,  be  neglected  or  set  at 
naught.  The  torrent  of  human  passions,  once  it  has  overleaped  this 
barrier,  wdll  overwhelm  our  beautiful  country  with  ruins.  All  our 
dearly  bought  liberties  will  be  virtually  destroyed  ;  property  will  be  no 
longer  secure  ;  law  and  order  will  give  place  to  passion  and  mob  violence  ; 
the  dearest  of  all  human  rights  and  privileges, —  that  of  worshiping  God 
according  to  the  dictates  of  our  conscience, —  will  be  annihilated;  the 
beautiful  earthly  paradise  of  our  happy  republic  will  be  changed  into  a 
frowning  wilderness,  filled  with  horror  and  desolation  :  finally,  anarchy 
will  take  the  place  of  order  and  good  government.  The  worst  possible 
species  of  tyranny  is  that  of  the  mob.  Far  batter  be  oppressed  by  one 
tyrant,  than  be  crushed  and  torn  by  a  thousand  :  far  better,  have  even  a 
Nero*  or  a  Diocletian  to  lord  it  over  you,  than  be  ruled  by  that  hydra¬ 
headed  monster,  called  a  mob.  The  solitary  tyrant  may  have  some 
misgivings,  or  retain  some  remnant  of  justice  or  humanity  ;  he  may  at 
jeast  be  checked  by  a  sense  of  personal  responsibility,  and  may  tremble  on 
his  throne  at  the  fear  of  popular  retribution  :  the  many-headed  despot  ha.s 
neither  reason,  nor  justice,  nor  humanity,  nor  conscience,  nor  fear  of  God 
or  man,  to  restrain  him  from  deeds  of  violence. 

For  tlie  truth  of  this  picture,  we  appeal  with  confidence  to  all  history  ; 
from  the  period  when  an  excited  mob  cried  out  against  the  Blessed 
Jesus  at  the  tribunal  of  Pilate  ;  —  Crucify  Him  !  crucify  Him  ! !  —  down 
to  the  other  day,  -when  another  mob,  composed  of  persons  calling 
themselves  Christians,  raised  fiendish  shouts  of  triumph  at  the  tearing 
down  and  trampling  under  foot  of  the  Cross,  which  had  ornamented  the 
spire  of  a  Catholic  Church  in  Chelsea  !  At  every  time  and  in  every 
place,  the  mob  has  always  been  the  same  ruthless,  savage,  untameable 
monster  ;  the  Christian  scarcely  less  so  than  the  pagan.' 

Unhappily,  we  need  not  go  far  back  into  times  past,  nor  travel  far 
from  home,  to  witness  the  sad  effects  of  mob  violence.  A  distinctive 
feature  in  the  present  crusade  against  Catholics  in  this  country,  is 
precisely  the  invoking  against  them  of  this  ruthless  spirit.  Five  or  six 
of  our  churches  either  burnt,  or  sacked,  or  blown  up  by  gunpowder, — 
most  of  them  while  our  citizens  were  engaged  in  the  joyous  celebration 
of  the  liberty -hallowed  Fourth  of  July;  —  street  brawlers,  generally 

1  For  mote  on  this  subject,  we  refer  to  the  Chapter  om  Mobs,  in  this  Volume,  p.  619,  se(jq.,  auj 
to  the  Article  on  the  Philadelphia  Riots,  p.  596,  seqq. 


I  N  T  R  0  D  U  C  T  OJR  Y  ADDRESS. 


XXI 


men  of  the  lowest  and  most  infamous  character,  hired  to  vilify  and 
slander  us  and  all  that  we  hold  most  dear  and  sacred  in  the  public  streets 
and  highways,  thereby  openly  exciting  the  passions  of  the  ignorant  to 
bloody  civil  feuds;  our  people,  after  having  been  thus  grievously  wronged 
in  tiieir  character  as  citizens  and  as  religionists,  butchered  in  brutal  street 
encounters,  or  assassinated  in  detail,*  and  then  almost  invariably  placed 
in  the  wrong  by  a  mendacious  press  and  telegraph,  in  the  interest  of 
their  enemies;  and  the  victims  of  all  these  cruel  and  accumulated  wrono-s 

o 

generally  receiving,  instead  of  sympathy,  but  additional  obloquy  and 
persecution,  they  being  in  almost  every  instance  the  only  ones  arrested 
and  punished  for  the  riots  which  others  had  caused,  while  the  murderers 
and  assassins  and  church  burners  escape: — these  are  some  of  the 
practical  w^orldngs  of  that  truculent  spirit,  which,  during  the  present 
year,  has  been  aroused  against  us  in  t\\\sfree  country  ! 

Eveiy  one  knows  how  a  Catholic  priest  —  the  Rev.  Mr.  Bapst  —  was 
lately  treated ^by  a  savage  mob  at  Ellsworth  in  Maine.  He  was  universally 
conceded  to  be  a  man  of  great  zeal  and  benevolence,  as  well  as  of  irreproach¬ 
able  life.  The  only  crime  alleged  against  him,  was  that  he  had  dared 
express  an  opinion  on  the  Common  School  System,  different  from  that  of 
the  majority.  For  this,  in  pursuance  of  a  resolution  passed  at  a  town 
meeting,  he  was  tarred  and  feathered,  ridden  on  a  rail,  and  treated  with 
indignities,  which  forcibly  remind  us  of  the  scenes  on  Calvary  ;  indignities 
cf  which  savages  should  have  been  ashamed.  The  ruffians,  amidst  these 
horrible  outrages  to  God’s  minister,  did  not,  however,  forget  to  rifle  his 
pockets  and  to  appropriate  to  themselves  his  watch  and  money  !  ^  Says 
the  Bangor  Journal  —  a  secular  print  of  the  vicinity  : 

“  While  the  tarring  and  feathering  was  going  on,  he  was  mocked  and 
reviled  with  horrid  blasphernies  and  indecencies.  He  was  asked  why  he 
came  over  to  this  country.  To  preach  the  Catholic  doctrine,  he  replied. 
We  are  Protestants,  the  ruffians  said,  and  will  teach  you  better  than  that. 
One,  mocking  him,  said  scornfully  :  “  So  they  persecuted  Jesus  of  old.” 
Another,  reviling,  asked  “Will  the  Virgin  Mary  save  you?”  These 
blasphemies  remind  one  of  the  mockings  on  Calvary.  Some  asked  him 
.  how  many  wives  he  had,  how  many  children,  &c.  These  are  the  most 
decent  of  the  insults,  and  are  all  that  admit  of  publication.” 

Do  we  live  in  the  nineteenth  century,  or  have  we  been  transported 
back  to  the  period  of  civil  commotions  in  the  middle  ages  ;  when  modern 
society  was  struggling  into  form,  when  feudal  strife  filled  Europe  with 
bloody  intestine  feuds,  and  when  Guelph  and  Ghibelline  caused  the 
streets  of  Florence  and  Milan  to  run  in  blood  ?  Do  we  live  in  a  land  of 

1  Witness  the  assassiuation  of  poor  McCarthy  at  Newark  ;  and  other  murders  mentioned  in  (ho 
public  prints.  _  2  Something  more  than  fifty  dollars 


XXll 


INTRODUCTORY  ADDRESS. 


liberty  and  law,  or  in  one  of  tyranny  and  anarchy  ?  Has  our  nobis 
constitution  —  the  master  work  of  human  wisdom  —  become  a  dead 
letter ;  or  what  is  worse,  have  its  just  and  equitable  provisions,  securing 
equal  civil  and  religious  freedom  to  all,  been  openly  contemried  and 
trampled  under  foot  ?  Have  our  people  forgotten  the  price  of  liberty, 
tliat  they  now  hold  it  so  cheap  ?  What  will  the  friends  of  moiiaT'chy  and 
the  enemies  of  republicanism  in  the  old  world  think  and  say,  as  they 
point  in  triumph  to  these  sad  commentaries,  which  we  have  written  with 
our  own  hands,  on  our  boasted  fundamental  principle  of  equal  law  and 
equal  privileges  to  all  ?  What  will  the  radical  republicans  of  Europe, 
with  whom  so  many  of  our  people  profess  to  sympathize,  answer,  when 
their  opponents  will  appeal  to  such  practical  workings  of  liberty  as  the 
above,  in  the  great  Model  Republic  across  the  Atlantic?  Can  any 
reasonable  man  doubt,  that  the  excesses  to  which  we  allude  will  have  the 
effect  of  greatly  weakening,  if  not  of  wholly  marring  the  cause  of  true 
and  rational  liberty  throughout  the  world  ? 

If  history  utters  any  warning,  or  teaches  any  lesson,  it  is  this  great 
truth  :  that  persecution  has  never  yet  put  down  a  good  cause,  nor 
materially  served  a  bad  one.  Truth  may  be  obscured  or  smothered  for  a 
time  ;  it  cannot  be  destroyed.  Thus  the  sun  may  be  darkened  for  a  time 

the  interposing  cloud,  but  anon  his  bright  rays  will  break  out  again 
to  illumine  the  world  ;  no  human  power  can  wholly  extinguish  his  light, 
much  less  blot  him  out  from  the  heavens.  Yet  the  'sun  will  share  the 
fate  of  all  things  created,  and  cease  to  exist ;  but  the  truth  of  God  abideth 
forever.  For  more  than  eighteen  centuries  the  Catholic  Church  has 
stood,  a  tower  of  strength,  amidst  the  ruins  of  all  things  earthly,  strewn 
in  her  pathway.  Dynasties  have  changed,  thrones  have  fallen,  and 

sceptres  have  been  broken  around  her;  yet  has  she  stood,  and  she  stiT 
stands,  strono-er  than  ever  : 

“  She  saw  the  commencement  of  all  the  governments  and  of  all  the 
ecclesiastical  establishments,  that  now  exist  in  the  world  ;  and  we  feel  no 
assui'ance  that  she  is  not  destined  to  see  the  end  of  them  all.  .  .  Four 
times  since  the  Church  of  Rome  was  established  in  western  Christendom 
has  the  human  intellect  risen  up  against  her  yoke.  Twice  she  remained 
completely  victorious.  Twice  she  came  forth  from  tlie  conflict  bearing 
the  marks  of  cruel  wounds,  but  with  the  principle  of  life  still  strong 
within  her.  When  we  reflect  upon  the  tremendous  assaults  which  she 
has  survived,  we  find  it  difficult  to  conceive  in  what  way  she  is  to  perish.”* 

Nothing  could,  in  fact,  be  more  honorable  to  the  Catholic  Church  than 
the  mode  of  warfare  which  has  been  lately  adopted  to  effect  her  ruin  in 
this  country.  In  appealing  to  passion  and  mob  violence  against  her,  her 


1  Macaulay  —  Review  of  Ranke’s  History  of  the  Popes 


INTRODUCTORY  ADDRESS.  xxiii 

enemies  virtually  acknowledge  that  calm  examination  and  sober  rea¬ 
soning  are  powerless  for  her  destruction  ;  by  the  necessity  under  which 
they  find  themselves  to  resort  to  misrepresentation  and  slander,  they 
^  substantially  concede  that  they  would  be  worsted  in  the  fair  field  of 
truthful  statement  and  dispassionate  argument.  Thus,  those  Protestants 
who  have  been  induced  by  prejudice  and  passion  to  favor  this  unhallowed 
mode  of  attack  upon  our  Church,  have  really  abandoned  the  vantage- 
ground  in  the  controversy,  and  have  thereby  unwittingly  yielded  us  the 
victory.  Bad  temper,  unfairness,  and  violence  in  a  disputant,  greatly 
damage  his  cause,  in  the  judgment  of  all  calm  and  impartial  men ; 
while  the  party  assailed  by  such  weapons  is  always  sure  to  win  sympathy, 
and  to  gain  on  public  opinion. 

Another  feature  in  the  present  violent  warfare  against  us,  is  its  glaring 
inconsistency.  The  men  who  are  most  prominent  in  the  qrusade  are,  in 
general,  as  unprincipled  as  the  means  they  employ  are  detestable.^ 
Professing  to  be  the  champions  of  freedom,  their  secret  and  even  avowed 
object  is  to  rob  of  freedom  a  large  portion  of  their  fellow  citizens  :  —  for 
their  “  war  to  the  hilt  against  Romanism,”  as  explained  by  their  words 
and  their  actions,  means  nothing  less  than  this.  Professing  to  love  the 
Bible,  and  boasting  a  wish  to  see  the  principles  of  the  Bible  triumphantly 
carried  out  in  politics,  they  trample  recklessly  upon  the  most  cherished 
principles  of  the  Bible.  The  Bible  says:  “Thou  shaltlove  thy  neighbor 
as  thyself;  ”  they  say,  we  must  hate  our  neighbor,  and  declare  war  to 
the  hilt  against  him,  if  he  happen  to  belong  to  the  oldest  and  most 
numerous  body  of  Christians  on  the  face  of  the  earth.  The  Bible  teaches, 
that  we  must  love  our  enemies  ;  they  hate  even  their  friends,  or  those  at 
least  who  have  never  wronged  them  in  thought  or  deed.  The  Bible 
inculcates  the  equitable  principle,  th^t  we  must  do  unto  others,  as  we 
would  wish  others  to  do  unto  us  under  like  circumstances  ;  they  teach 
that  Catholics  are  to  be  excluded  from  the  operation  of  this  Gospel  rule. 
The  Bible  teaches,  that  we  are  to  be  kind  and  indulgent  to  the  poor 
stranger  who  comes  within  our  borders  ;  they  teach  that  no  treatment  is 
too  hard  for  the  stranger,  if  he  dare  think  for  himself  in  matters  of  religion, 
and  exercise  his  undoubted  civil  rights  —  clearly  guaranteed  to  him  by 
the  constitution  in  the  country  of  his  adoption.  These  specifications  will 
Suffice  to  show,  how  our  boasted  lovers  and  champions  of  the  Bible, —  who 
are  wont  to  parade  the  sacred  volume  in  their  riotous  and  bloody  proces- 

1  We  Fpe«k  here  andthroughoui  this  Address  chiefly  of  the  leaders  in  rhe  anti-Catholic  warfare. 
We  are  courinced  that  very  many  among  those  who  have  enrolled  themselves  in  the  new  political 
party  are  well  meaning  men,  who  have  been  misled  by  the  arts  cf  others,  or  who  are  even  persuaded 
that  they  are  doing  God  and  their  country  service  by  proscribing  Catholics ! 


XXIV 


INTRODUCTORY  ADDRESS. 


Bions,’  —  wantonly  trample  it  under  foot,  whenever  its  declarations  conflict 
with  their  headlong  passions. 

Another  glaring  inconsistency  in  those  who  are  foremost  in  the  anti- 
Catholic  crusade,  is  found  in  the  fact,  that  while  they  profess  to  advocate 
a  change  of  policy  in  regard  to  all  foreigners  who  come  to  our  shores, 
they  secretly,  and  sometimes  even  openly,  fraternize  with  the  blood¬ 
stained  Irish  Orangemen  and  the  truculent  German  infidels  !  Their 
boasted  political  principles  are  thus  lost  sight  of,  or  openly  violated, 
whenever  there  is  a  good  opportunity  for  waging  a  “  war  to  the  hilt 
against  Romanism.^’  Every  one  is  familiar  with  the  late  atrocious 
attack  on  the  Catholic  Church  at  Newark  by  Irish  Orangemen,  and  how 
the  press  in  tli^e  interest  of  the  Know  Nothings,  as  usual,  added  slander 
to  outrage,  by  laying  all  the  blame  on  the  Irish  Catholics.  Well, 
sacrilege  was  perpetrated  in  the  open  light  of  day ;  murder  was  done  on 
the  person  of  an  inoffensive  man :  yet  up  to  the  present  day  not  one 
among  the  foreign  Protestant  perpetrators  of  these  horrid  deeds  has  been 
even  arrested  !  Still  the  truth  came  out,  after  the  first  storm  of  passion 
had  passed  away  ;  and  even  the  New  York  Tribune,  re-echoing  the 
declaration  of  other  papers,  at  length  honorably  proclaimed  it  as  follows : 

The  Newark  Murder  and  Sacrilege. —  “That  Church  stands  fairly 
exculpated  from  all  offense,  and  its  devastation  is  an  unprovoked  and 
shameful  outrage,  which  reflects  great  discredit  on  Newark  and  belligerent 
Protestantism.  And  it  is  worthy  of  note  that  while  this  is  the  fifth  or 
sixth  Catholic  edifice,  which  has  been  destroyed  or  devastated  by  mob 
violence  in  our  country,  there  is  no  instance  on  record  wherein  a  Protestant 
house  of  worship  has  been  ravaged  by  Catholics P 

As  if  conscious  of  the  dishonorable  character  of  their  warfare  on  Cath¬ 
olics,  the  new  anti- Catholic  party  enters  the  field  shrouded  in  secresy  and 
wrapped  up  in  mystery.  Professing  to  be  the  champions  of  “  American 
principles,”  they  skulk  away  into  darkness,  and  seem  ashamed  to  sliow 
their  faces  in  the  light  of  day.  If  this  be  one  of  the  “American 
principles,”  then  are  we  done  forever  with  American  principles  !  Born 
and  reared  up  in  this  free  country,  we  have  doated  from  our  infancy  on 
the  glorious  principles  embodied  in  our  noble  declaration  of  independence, 
and  in  those  cognate  ones  set  forth  in  our  matchless  constitution.  They 
have  been  the  dream  of  our  youth,  and  the  idol  of  our  maturer  years. 
And  we  have  had  abundant  opportunities  to  know,  that  those  whom 
choice,  and  not  the  mere  accident  of  birth,  have  made  citizens  of  our 
happy  country,  have,  without  an  exception  known  to  us,  entertained  a 
fond  predilection  for  American  principles,  scarcely  surpassed  in  intensity 

1  As  they  did  during  the  Philadelphia  Riots.  2  New  York  Tribune,  of  September  8,  1854 


INTRODUCTORY  ADDRESS. 


XXV 


oy  our  own.  But  we  and  they  had  thought,  in  our  simplicity,  that 
manliness  was  one  among  those  cherished  “American  principles”  :  that 
it  was  even  an  essential  part  of  the  American  character  to  be  open, 
candid,  and  sti xight-forward  in  all  its  acts;  that  the  American  could 
have  no  possible  cause  to  be  ashamed  either  of  his  name,  of  his  political 
doctrines,  or  of  his  acts  ;  that  he  needed  no  cover  of  darkness  to  conceal 
either  his  purposes  or  his  deeds.  But  we  were  mistaken  ;  our  dream  has 
been  dissipated  ;  and  we  awake  to  the  painful  reality,  that  neither  we  nor 
our  fathers  knew  anything  about  “  American  principles,”  until  we  were 
happily  taught  them  by  foreign  infidels,  incendiaries,  and  assassins, 
boasting  the  hallowed  name  of  patriots  and  martyrs  of  liberty  !  Yet 
these  were  the  very  men  against  whose  pernicious  arts  Washington  had 
so  solemnly  warned  us,  when  he  bade  us  beware  of  foreign  influence  ! 
'I'he  real  dano'er  to  our  renublican  institutions  lies  in  the  encourag-ement 
given  to  those  mischievous  men  —  the  spawn  of ‘foreign  revolutions  — 
whom  failure  in  their  attempts  abroad  causes  to  be  cast  upon  our  shores. 
Received  with  open  arms  by  our  patriotic  sympathy,  they  proceed 
forthwith  to  organize  amongst  us  those  dangerous  secret  political  societies, 
which  were  the  chief  instruments  of  their  warfare  in  Europe.  Hear  what 
the  venerable  Josiah  Quincy  says  of  such  societies  : 

“  The  liberties  of  a  people  are  never  more  certainly  in  the  path  of 
destruction,  than  when  they  trust  themselves  to  the  guidance  of  secret 
societies.  Birds  of  the  nig-ht  are  never  birds  of  wisdom.  One  of  them 
indeed  received  this  name,  but  it  was  from  its  looks,  and  not  from  its 
moral  and  intellectual  qualities.  They  ai-e  for  the  most  part  birds  of 
prey.  The  fate  of  a  republic  is  sealed  when  the  Bats  take  the  lead  of  the 
Eagles.” 

Every  reader  of  American  history  knows  how  Washington  saved  the 
country,  by  refusing  to  recognize  Genet,  the  envoy  of  the  bloody  Fi-ench 
republic  ;  whose  arts  and  influence  among  the  people  had  well  nigh 
brought  ruin  on  our  infant  government.  The  calm  judgment  and  wise 
forecast  of  Washington  prevented  us  from  being  led  away  by  this  most 
dangerous  “  foreign  influence  ;  ”  leading  to  precisely  such  “  entangling 
alliances,”  as  the  demagogue  Kossuth,  at  a  more  recent  period,  sought, 
happily  in  vain,  to  bring  about. 

But  enough  on  this  branch  of  the  subject.  We  cannot  bring  ourselves 

to  believe,  for  a  moment,  that  the  narrow-minded,  inconsistent,  unscrip- 

tural,  un-American,  and  utterly  detestable  spirit,  exhibited  by  those 

among  us  who  now  take  a  leading  part  in  the  warfare  against  Catholics,  is 

at  all  likely  to  become  the  settled  policy  of  our  yet  happy  and  prosperous 

country.  Should  we,  however,  be  wrong  in  this  belief,  and  should  tliat 
0 

fi. 


'\ 


XXVI 


INTRODUCTORY  ADDRESS. 


truculent  spirit  prevail  for  a  time  over  sounder  and  more  -American 
principles  ;  should  the  persecution  of  Catholics  continue  and  increase 
until  our  churches  will  all  be  in  ruins,  and  there  will  remain  no  resting 
place  for  our  feet  on  the  soil  of  this  republic  ;  then  are  we  convinced, 
that  amidst  the  ruins  of  our  Church  in  this  country  will  be  strewn 
likewise  the  ruins  of  the  republic  itself !  The  liberal  and  enlarged 
principles  of  the  latter  will  be  annihilated  ;  its  greatness  will  be  arrested 
and  its  glories  dimmed ;  and  while  the  stars  of  its  flag  may  yet  float  in 
the  heavens,  its  E  Pluribus  Unum  will  be  obliterated,  and  its  many 
colored  stripes,  emblematic  of  union  in  diversity  —  like  its  motto  —  will 
be  blotted  out  forever.* 

Still  we  are  unshaken  in  our  hope  of  better  things  in  the  future.  There 
is,  after  all,  a  strongl  v  conservative  spirit  and  a  practical  good  sense  in  the 
mass  of  our  population,  which  needs  only  be  fairly  awakened,  to  frown 
down  all  attempts  at  fastening  on  our  necks  the  system  of  narrow-minded 
and  proscriptive  policy  of  which  we  are  speaking.  To  this  practical  sense 
and  “sober  second  thought’^  alone  do  we  now  address  ourselves;  all 
reasoning  with  the  unscrupulous  faction  which  seeks  to  abridge  or  destroy 
our  liberties,  were  worse  than  useless.  We  will  accordingly  devote  the 
^maining  portion  of  this  Address  to  answering  some  principal  objections 
made  against  us  by  our  more  reasonable  opponents.  Fully  to  refute  them 
all,  would  require  a  volume  ;  though  the  bulk  of  the  charges  might  be 
answered,  by  simply  saying  that  we  are  misrepresented.  We  will  confine 
ourselves  to  those  which  affect  our  character  as  citizens  and  even  here, 
we  must  be  brief,  though  we  hope  that  what  we  shall  be  able  to  say  will 
be  plain,  straightforward,  and  to  the  purpose.  Truth  needs  no  gloss  nor 
drapery  ;  when  presented  in  its  simple  and  unadorned  beauty,  it  best 
attracts  the  admiration,  and  wins  the  homage  of  all  its  candid  and 
impartial  votaries. 

Almost  all  the  accusations  made  against  us  are  reducible  to  these  two 
heads  ;  first,  that  in  religion  we  are  intolerant  and  proscriptive  ;  second, 
that  in  politics,  we  are  enemies  of  republican  institutions,  and  friends  of 
a  foreign  despotism.  We  will  proceed  summarily  to  answer  these  two 
charges,  together  with  some  of  the  principal  specifications  alleged  to 
support  them.  But  as  we  cannot  be  reasonably  expected  in  this 
Introductory  Address  to  go  into  all  the  details  necessary  for  the  full 

1  Or  if  not  wholly  ohl iterated,  at  least  severed  from  the  unity  of  the  Flag:  the  stars  being  for 
the  native  oorn,  and  the  stripes  for  the  foreigner,  escaping  from  tyranny  to  this  noble  asylum  of 
freedom  !  This  is  the  bea»itiful  thought  of  \rchbiahop  Hvighes 

2  In  the  following  Pages,  .we  answer  many  of  the  most  current  popular  charges  against  the 
Church  ;  particulaiiy  in  the  Theological  Essays,  Part  ii.  p  397,  seqq. 

a 


/ 


INTRODUCTORY  ADDRESS. 


XXVll 


elucidation  of  a  subject  so  vast  in  the  topics  wliicli  it  mus:'  necessarily 
embrace,  we  sliall  claim  the  privilege  of  referring,  as  we  proceed,  to  the 
Essays  contained  in  this  volume  for  such  additional  facts  and  illustrations 
as  they  may  supply,  on  the  points  which  will  successively  come  under 
discussion. 

I.  In  regard  to  the  charge  of  exclusiveness  and  intolerance,  two  things, 
which  are  often  confounded,  should  be  accurately  distinguished  :  namely. 
theological  exclusiveness  and  civil  intolerance.  Our  Protestant  brethren 
have,  in  general,  very  vague  and  loose  ideas  upon  this  subject.  Among 
them,  the  term  religious  liberality  generally  implies  what  might  with  more 
propriety  be  called  latitudinarianism.  The  fashionable  theory,  which 
now  obtains  extensively  among  those  outside  of  the  Catholic  Church, 
holds  that  it  matters  not  what  a  Christian  believes,  provided  he  try  to  be 
a  moral  man  and  a  good  citizen  ;  in  other  words,  that  Christ  either  taught 
no  specific  doctrines  whatever,  or  that  He  required,  as  a  condition  of 
salvation,  belief  in  none  which  He  did  teach,  or  at  most  in  but  a  few 
fundamental  articles.  When  those,  who  maintain  the  obligation  of 
belief  in  these  fundamental  principles  only,  are  called  upon  to  define 
them,  they  are  often  embarrassed  for  an  answer ;  some  giving  a  wider, 
some  a  more  limited  range  to  the  points  in  question.  All,  however, 
agree  in  advocating,  to  a  greater  or  less  extent,  the  latitudinarian  pianciple 

above  indicated.  ^ 

Now  we  Catholics  strongly  protest  against  this  popular  theory,  as 
tendino-  to  unsettle  all  faith,  and  to  subvert  Christianity  itself.  We  hold 

that  Christ  delivered  a  definite  system  of  religion  ;  that  all  the  doctrines 

» 

which  He  taught  are  equally  true,  and  equally  to  be  believed  ;  tliat  He 
died  on  the  cross  to  seal  the  truth  of  them  all  with  His  blood  ;  and  that 
consequently  all  the  articles  of  faith  which  he  established,  in  a  manner  so 
solemn,  must  be  believed  by  all  who  have  the  means  of  knowing  them. 
In  other  words,  we  hold  that  Christ,  being  the  Son  of  God  and  Truth 
itself,  did  establish,  and  in  the  very  nature  of  things,  could  have  estab¬ 
lished,  but  ONE  religion;  and  that,  as  He  founded  it  for  the  salvation  of 
mankind.  He  must  have  required  that  it  should  be  embraced,  in  all  its 
parts,  by  all  who  would  be  saved.  This  principle  we  regard  as  almost 
self-evident ;  and  we  cannot  see  how  it  can  be  denied  by  any,  who  have 
definite  ideas  on  the  nature  and  purpose  of  the  Christian  religion,  or  who 
believe  in  the  divinity  of  its  Author  and  Founder.  If  the  Christian 
reli'don  was  not,  after  all,  necessary  to  salvation,  then  why  did  the  Son 
of  God  undergo  so  much  labor,  and  endure  so  much  obloquy  and 


XXVlll 


INTRODUCTORY  ADDRESS. 


sufFeriiig  for  its  establishment  ?  Wliy  did  He  say,  speaking  of  all  the 
doctrines  which  He  had  taught  without  any  distinction:  “He  that 
believeth  not,  shall  be  condemned  ?  ”  ‘  Why  does  His  inspired  apostle 
Paul  declare, in  the  name  of  his  Master, —  “  Without  faith  it  is  impossible 
to  please  God  !  ”  " 

But  our  present  purpose  does  not  require  us  to  discuss  this  or  any 
other  doctrinal  point ;  we  are  merely  stating  our  belief.  What  then  do 
we  hold  in  reo-ard  to  those  who  are  outside  of  the  one  true  Church  of 

O 

Christ  ?  Do  we  condemn  them  all  alike  and  indiscriminately?  We  do  not. 
We  leave  them  to  their  own  responsibility  before  God,  by  whose  unerring 
judgment  they  will,  like  ourselves,  stand  or  fall.  If  not  united  with  the 
Church,  through  their  own  fault, —  having  the  light  and  opportunity  to 
find  out  what  it  is,  and  neglecting  to  correspond  therewith, —  they  are  in  ' 
imminent  danger  of  losing  their  immortal  souls,  for  which  Jesus  died. 
If  they  are  separated  from  it,  without  any  fault  of  theirs, —  should  there 
be  any  such, —  they  will  not  be  condemned  for  this  ;  for  God  condemns 
none  but  the  guilty.  Whether  they  are  out  of  the  true  church  with  or 
without  their  own  fault,  the  great  Searcher  of  hearts  alone  can  decide; 
and  in  His  hands  we  leave  them. 

But  the  Catholic  Church  teaches  farther,  with  Christ  Himself,  that  we 
must  “  love  our  neighbor  as  ourselves  ;  ”  that  we  must  bear  the  burdens  of 
one  another ;  that  we  must  pray  for  and  love  even  our  enemies,  and  do  good 
to  those  who  do  evil  to  us  ;  that,  when  it  is  question  of  solacing  misery  or 
succoring  distress,  we  must  not  stop  to  inquire  the  belief  of  the  sufferer : 
in  a  word,  that  without  charity  towards  all  mankind,  the  profession  of 
Christianity  wtre  vain  and  profitless.  The  Catholic  Church  enjoins  upon 
her  children  to  be  just  in  all  their  dealings,  to  be  good  citizens,  to  be  good 
neighbors,  to  be  good  parents,  good  children,  good  husbands,  good 
wives  ;  —  good  in  every  relation  of  society ;  but  especially,  to  be  good 
Christians,  loving  God  above  all  things,  and  performing  all  their  actions 
for  His  honor  and  glory. 

If  these  principles  be  intolerant,  then  must  we  plead  guilty  to  the  charge. 
But  if  tliey  be  such  as  are  essentially  connected  with  Christianity  itself, 
such  as  alone  are  true  and  consistent  with  the  whole  tenor  and  the  very 
end  and  aim  of  the  Christian  religion  ;  then  are  we  content  to  bear  what¬ 
ever  of  obloquy  may  attach  to  our  belief  in  them.  If,  to  be  considered 
charitable,  we  are  called  upon  to  sacrifice  truth  and  common  sense  itself, 
and  to  say  that  a  hundred  contradictory  systems  of  belief  may  all  be  equally 


1  St.  iViarkxvi. 


2  Ilebrews  xi. 


INTRODUCTORY  ADDRESS. 


XXIX 


true,  then  must  we  submit  to  the  imputation  of  uncharitableness.  In  this 
we  do  but  imitate  St.  Paul,  who  sought  not  to  please  men,  but  rather  to 
be  the  servant  of  Christ and  we  do  but  share  in  the  ignominy  of  Christ 
Himself,  who,  instead  of  flattering  human  error,  died  for  the  truth. 

But  does  the  Catholic  Church  “call  down  fire  from  heaven”  on  the 
heads  of  those  who  dissent  from  her  belief?  By  no  means  :  hers  has 
been  at  all  times  a  different  spirit  altogether,  and  one  more  consonant  with 
that  of  her  divine  Founder.  Her  mission  has  been  to  win  sinners  to 
repentance,  to  inculcate  mercy  and  love,  not  hatred  and  bitterness.  The 
first  laws  for  the  punishment  of  heretics  were  enacted  by  the  early 
Christian  emperors,  not  by  the  Popes,  the  bishops,  or  the  Church.  The 
latter  deprecated  all  rigor  against  the  sectaries,  unless  in  particular  cases, 
where  it  seemed  indispensable  to  restrain  violence,  or  to  redress  open  and 
glaring  outrages  against  religious  liberty.^  The  Catholic  bishops  and  the 
Popes  were  themselves  often  the  victims  of  imperial  claims  to  regulate  the 
affairs  of  the  Church ;  and  it  is  very  doubtful  whether  they  could  have 
prevented  the  enactment  and  execution  of  the  laws  in  question.  The  Popes 
were  always  opposed  to  violent  measures  for  the  propagation  of  the  faith 
among  pagans  ;  and  they  were  also  in  the  habit  of  throwing  the  shield  of 
their  protection  around  the  Jews,  whenever  their  religious  privileges  and 
civil  rights  were  infringed  by  intemperate  Christian  zeal.’  The  Church 
has  thus  always  adopted  and  acted  upon  the  maxim  of  Tertullian,  who, 
more  than  sixteen  centuries  ago,  claimed  religious  liberty  for  Christians 
as  an  indefeasable  right,  growing  out  of  the  very  nature  of  religion  itself : 
“Religionis  non  est  Religionem  Cogere  —  It  is  not  the  part  op 
RELIGION  TO  ESTABLISH  RELIGION  BY  FORCE.”'*  Her  Spirit  of  mildness  was 
breathed  forth  by  the  great  St.  Augustine,  when,  writing  to  Donatus,  the 
imperial  Proconsul  in  Africa,  he  deprecated  all  undue  severity  against  the 
Arians  and  Donatists,  and  said  :  “  We  desire  them  to  be  corrected,  not 
slain  As  one  of  her  greatest  Popes,  St.  Leo  the  Great,  says  :  “  The 
lenity  of  the  Church  being  content  with  the  priestly  sentence,  shrinks  from 
sanguinary  vengeance  ;”®  and  she  sanctions  or  tolerates  severe  measures 
emanating  from  the  princes  of  the  earth,  only  when,  without  them,  society 

1  “  Do  I  seek  to  please  men  !  If  I  yet  pleased  men,  I  should  not  be  the  servant  of  Christ.” —  Gaia* 
tians  i,  10. 

2  See  the  evidence  on  this  subject,  presented  in  considerable  detail  by  Archbishop  Kenrick,  in  his 
work  on  the  I'rimacy;  Tart  ii.  chap.  viii. 

3  For  many  facts  sustaining  this  assertion,  see  “The  Primacy,”  ibid. 

4  The  whole  passage  of  Tertullian,  as  translated  by  Archbishop  Kenrick,  is  as  follows :  “  It  is 
man's  right  and  privilege,  that  each  one  should  worship  what  he  thinks  proper  ;  nor  can  the  religion 
cf  another  injure  or  profit  him.  Neither  is  it  a  part  of  religion  to  compel  its  adoption;  since  this 
should  be  spontaneous,  not  forced,  as  even  sacrifices  are  asked  only  of  the  cheerful  giver.”  Primacy, 

ibid.  5  Epist.  Donato.  6  Epist.  ad  Turribium. 


C2 


XXX 


INTRODUCTORY  ADDRESS. 


itself  would  be  endangered,  *‘all  regard  for  probity  destroyed,  all  bonds 
of  society  dissolved,  and  divine  and  human  laws  at  once  overturned. ’V 
Hence  that  celebrated  and  well  known  maxim,  embodied  as  an  axiom  in 
her  Canon  Law  :  “Ecclesia  abhorret  a  Sanguine — Th.e  Cfiurch  abhors 
BLOODSHED.”  So  far  is  this  principle  carried,  that  a  standing  rule  of  lier 
discipline  forbids  the  ordination,  not  only  of  those  who  have  been  guiliy 
of  shedding  blood,  but  also  of  those  who,  whether  as  judges,  accusers,  or 
voluntary  witnesses,  have  co-operated  towards  passing  a  sentence  of  death 
on  a  fellow  man,  or  even  one  of  bodily  mutilation  without  taking  life.^ 
From  the  earliest  period  of  her  history,  she  has  taught  and  acted  upon 
these  principles.  To  furnish  one  out  of  a  hundred  examples  of  this,  it  is 
well  known  that  in  the  fourth  century,  St,  Martin,  the  illustrious  bishop 
of  Tours,  openly  censured  two  Spanish  bishops  —  Ithacius  and  Idacius  — 
for  teaching  that  the  Priscillianists  should  be  punished  with  corporal 
chastisement  or  death  for  their  wicked  heresy,  though  this  tended  to  the 
subversion  of  social  order  itself;  and  the  Church  sustained  him  in  his 
truly  Christian  course.* 

Persecution  is  not,  and  never  has  been  a  doctrine  of  the  Catholic  Church. 
Our  standard  writers  have  often  boldly  defied  their  adversaries  to  establish 
the  contrary  proposition ;  but  their  challenge  has  never  been  fairly  met. 
Surely,  if  the  Catholic  Church  had  ever  taught  persecution,  as  a  doctrine, 
her  enemies  could  tell  us  when  and  where  she  inculcated  the  offensive 
tenet.  If  she  ever  persecuted,  as  a  Church,  they  could  certainly  furnish 
us  with  such  facts  and  specifications  on  the  subject,  as  would  not  be  sus¬ 
ceptible  of  either  explanation  or  reply.  The  Catholic  Church  is  no  secret 
society  ;  she  has  taught  boldly,  and  acted  out  her  teaching  openly  in  the 
arena  of  the  world  for  more  than  eighteen  centuries  ;  and  if  the  charge  of 
persecution  could  be  sustained  against  her,  it  would  long  since  have  been 
done.  The  attempt  has  indeed  been  made,  but  it  has  utterly  failed.  Our 
writers  have  scattered  to  the  winds  the  arguments  of  their  opponents  on 
this  subject,  and  have  shown  that,  in  the  majority  of  cases,  the  latter  have 
substituted  vague  declamation  for  facts,  fiery  appeals  to  passion  for  sober 
argument. 

But  have  not  Catholics  persecuted  in  times  past  ?  We  do  not  deny  it ; 
but  we  answer,  that  they  did  so  in  virtue  of  no  doctrine  of  their  Church. 
If  the  mere  act  of  persecution  proved  the  doctrine,  then  it  would  follow 
that  all  the  Protestant  sects  hold  the  same  odious  tenet;  for  all  of  them 

1  Ibid.  lie  refers  to  the  fatal  errors  of  the  ancient  Manlcheans. 

2  See  our  Canoni.^ts— pasairn, 

3  The  great  St  Ambrose,  Bishop  of  Milan,  united  with  St.  Martin  in  this  charitable  interposition 
In  favor  of  the  persecuted  I’riscilliauiste 


INTRODUCTORY  ADDRESS. 


XXXI 


have  been  stained  with  persecution,  atone  period  or  other  of  their  history. 

« 

They  have  all  persecuted  Catholics, ^whenever  and  wherever  they  had  the 
power  to  do  so ;  and  almost  all  of  them  have  likewise  been  guilty  of  the 
glaring  inconsistency  of  persecuting  brother  Protestants,  for  daring,  in  the 
exercise  of  the  conceded  right  of  private  judgment,  to  think  differently 
from  themselves  !  But  who  would  infer  from  this  undoubted  fact,  that 
Protestants  generally  hold  it  as  a  doctrine^  that  all  who  dissent  from  their 
particular  views  should  be  put  down  by  fire  and  sword  ?  Such  a  con¬ 
clusion  would  be  clearly  illogical  and  grievously  unjust.  Now  we  claim 
the  application  of  the  same  equitable  principle  to  the  charge  of  persecu¬ 
tion  brought  against  our  Church ;  and  surely  our  claim  is  not  unreasonable. 

But  the  Catholic  Church  professes  to  be  infallible  and  unchangeable, 
whereas  the  Protestant  sects  admit  that  they  are  liable  to  err,  and  have 
often  erred  in  times  past.  We  freely  grant  the  latter  proposition  ;  in  regard 
to  the  former,  our  adversaries  lose  sight  of  a  very  obvious  distinction, 
which  truth  demands  should  be  made.  The  Catholic  Church  is  unchange- 

O 

able  in  doctrine,  but  not  in  discipline.  The  latter  may  and  does  vary  in 
its  details,  according  to  times,  places,  and  circumstances.  So  that,  even 
if  our  opponents  should  prove  that  our  Church  had,  at  any  period  of  her 
history,  adopted  persecution  as  a  line  of  conduct  under  particular  circum¬ 
stances,  or  as  a  general  discipline,  they  would  not  still  make  good  their 
position.  But  have  they  established  even  this  proposition  ?  We  believe 
not;  and  to  show  how  inconclusive  are  their  arguments,  on  a  point  which 
does  not  directly  touch  the  real  matter  at  issue,  we  will  briefly  refer  to  a 
few  of  their  specifications. 

They  allege,  with  an  air  of  triumph,  the  third  Canon  of  the  fourth 
Council  of  Lateran,*  which  excommunicated  hefetics,  and  ordered  that 
they  should  be  delivered  up  for  punishment  to  the  secular  power.  Our 
answer  is  obvious.  In  the  first  place,  it  is  manifest  that  no  doctrine  is 
promulgated  by  this  canon,  but  that  only  a  rule  of  action  is  laid  down 
for  a  particular  case.  2.  We  may  observe,  that  Mathew  Paris,  a  weighty 
cotemporary  historian,  denies  that  this  and  the  other  canons  were  the 
acts  of  the  couijcil  itself ;  ^  and  that  the  English  Protestant  church 
historian.  Collier,  declares  his  belief  that  the  third  canon  in  particular  is 
not  genuine.^  3.  But,  waiving  this,  and  admitting  the  genuineness  of 
the  canon,  every  reader  of  Church  History  knows  that  it  was  ^enacted 
with  the  full  concurrence,  and  probably  on  the  positive  demand,  of  the 

1  Held  A.  D.  1215. 

2  Math,  Paris —  ad  annum  1216,  apud  Milner  —  Letters  to  a  Prebendary. 

8  Collier,  Eoclesiastical  History  ;  toI.  i,  p.  424  :  quoted  ibid. 


XXXll 


INTRODUCTORY  ADDRESS. 


temporal  sovereigns  of  Christendom,  who  were  nearly  all  of  them  present 
at  the  council,  either  personally,  or  by  their  ambassadors.’  Some  of  the 
provisions  of  the  canon  could  not,  in  fact,  have  been  enacted,  much  less, 
carried  into  execution,  but  with  the  consent  and  co-operation  of  the 
temporal  sovereigns  ;  especially  of  those  who  were  chiefly  concerned.  It 
may  here  be  remarked,  in  general,  that  many  of  the  councils  held  during 
the  middle  ages  were  not  exclusively  ecclesiastical  conventions,  but 
rather  congresses  of  all  Christendom,  representing  the  temporal  as  well 
as  the  spiritual  power.^  4.  The  severe  provisions  of  this  canon  were 
directed  asfainst  the  Albigenses,  who  then  infested  the  south  of  France, 
than  whom  a  more  pestilent  sect  probably  never  existed.  They  were  the 
sworn  foes  of  all  religion,  of  all  decency,  and  of  all  social  order.  Wherever 
they  appeared,  desolation  and  ruin  followed  in  their  pathway.^  They 
were  the  Jacobins  and  Sans-culottes  of  the  twelfth  and  thirteenth  centuries  ; 
and  they  were,  if  possible,  even  more  truculent  and  bloody  than  the 
Jacobins  themselves.  They  were  the  enemies  of  both  God  and  man. 
Worse  than  our  modern  Mormons,  they  condemned  marriage  altogether, 
and  gave  a  free  rein  to  every  brutal  passion  and  appetite.  Had  they 
succeeded  in  establishing  their  principles,  all  order  and  all  civilization 
would  have  been  at  an  end.  Is  it  any  wonder  then,  that  all  Christendom  — 
the  State  no  less  than  the  Church  —  rose  up  in  mass  to  put  down,  even  by 
force,  a  sect  so  monstrous  ?  Is  it  not  plain  also,  that,  such  being  the 
facts,  the  severe  measures  sanctioned  by  the  council  constitute  an 
exceptional  case,  which  should  not  be  alleged  as  evidence  of  a  general 
rule  ?  And  for  the  truth  of  this  picture,  we  appeal  with  confidence  to 
all  cotemporary  history.  We  may  safely  apply  to  them  what  the  learned 
Protestant  church  histonan  Mosheim  candidly  says  of  a  cognate  sect  — 
the  Brethren  of  the  Free  Spirit : 

“  Certain  writers,  who  have  accustomed  themselves  to  entertain  a  high 
idea  of  .the  sanctity  of  all  those  who,  in  the  middle  ages,  separated 
themselves  from  the  Church  of  Rome,  suspect  the  inquisitors  of  having 
falsely  attributed  impious  doctrines  to  the  Brethren  of  the  Free  Spirit. 

1  There  were  thus  present  at  this  council  the  emperors  of  Germany  and  Constantinople,  the  kings 
of  France,  England,  Aragon,  Sicily,  Hungary,  Jerusalem,  and  Cyprus ;  -  besides  several  minor 
sovereigns. 

2  As  during  the  period  in  question,  society  was  struggling  into  form,  and  there  were  no  standing 
armies  to  repel  strongly  organized  and  wide-spread  aggressions  upon  social  order,  expedirions  of  a 
general  character  for  the  defense  of  society  were  decided  on  in  councils  of  the  European  sovereigns, 
and  when  the  enemies  of  order  were  likewise  the  foes  of  religion,  these  expeditions  were  c;dled  crusades. 

3  For  fifcts  and  details  on  this  subject,  we  beg  to  refer  to  “  The  Primacy,”  by  Archhbishop  Kenrick, 
sup.  cit. 

4  During  the  twelfth  and  thirteenth  centuries  a  great  part  of  Europe  was  infested  with  pernicious 
sects,  which  revived  under  different  forms  the  anti-social  errors  of  the  ancient  Maincheans.  They 
were  all  alike,  though  they  bore  the  different  names  of  Turlupins,  Begards,  Brethren  of  the  Free 
Spirit,  and  Albigenses.  The  Petro-Brusians  were  a  kindred  sect. 


INTRODUCTORY  ADDRESS. 


xxxni 


But  this  suspicion  is  entirely  groundless,  (fee.  .  .  .  Tlieir  shocking 
violation  of  decency  was  a  consequence  of  their  pernicious  system. 
They  looked  upon  decency  and  modesty  as  marks  ‘of  inward  corruption. 

.  .  .  Certain  entluisiasts  amongst  them  maintained,  that  the  be.iever  could 
not  sin,  let  his  conduct  be  ever  so  horrible  or  atrocious.”  ‘ 

But  what  have  we  to  say  on  the  Inquisition,  especially  the  Spanish 
Inquisition  ;  which,  with  the  alleged  sanction  of  the  Church,  filled 
Christendom  with  so  many  horrors  for  ages  ?  What  expljination  are  we 
to  give  of  what  occurred  at  the  Council  of  Constance,  which,  contrary  to 
plighted  faith,  consigned  John  Hussand  Jerome  of  Prague  to  the  flames  ? 
Satisfactory  answers  on  both  these  points  could  be  easily  given  ;  and  they 
have  been  given  a  hundred  times  already.  But  as  we  devote  special 
Essays  to  these  subjects  in  the  following  pages,  ^  we  must  refer  the  candid 
reader  to  them  for  details  ;  and  we  do  so  with  entire  confidence,  that 
all  who  will  take  the  trouble  to  read  these  papers,  will  rise  from  the  perusal 
with  the  conviction,  that  even  those  darker  passages  in  the  Church’s 
history  do  not  make  out  the  case  of  persecution  against  her,  even  as  a 
point  of  discipline.^ 

Come  we  now  to'^times  nearer  our  own  day.  What  are  the  statistics 
of  persecution  during  the  last  three  centuries,  since  the  dawn  of  what  has. 
been  called  by  its  friends  the  reformation  ?  And  how  stands  the  case  at 
present  in  Europe,  and  in  America  f  No  candid  man  who  has  read 
history  aright  will  deny,  that  during  this  period,  and  especially  at  present, 
we  have  been,  and  are  now,  much  more  sinned  against  than  sinning  in  the 
matter  of  persecution.  Catholics  who  speak  the  English  langu^e,  in 
particular,  have  been  for  three  hundred  years,  almost  without  intermission, 
the  victims  of  the  most  ruthless  intolerance.  Robbed  of  their  church  and' 
often  of  their  personal  property;  slandered  in  their  reputation;  hunted' 
down  by  the  myrmidons  of  a  persecuting  government ;  branded  as 
traitors  and  outlaws  in  their  own  country  and  that  of  their  fathers  before 
them  :  such  has  been  their  treatment  in  Protestant  England  up  to  a 
comparatively  recent  period  ;  ever  since  the  fatal  day  when  the  tyrant 
Henry  VIII. —  the  Nero  of  modern  times  —  quarreled  with  the  Pope,  and 
violently  severed  the  unity  of  the  Church,  because  she  could,  not  and' 
would  not  sancition  his  headlong  passions,  to  the  injury  of  a  virtuous- 
wife  !  ^  In  Ireland,  the  fate  of  the  Catholics  was  still  harder,  and  of 
lonsjer  continuance."* 

o 

1  Eccles.  History,  vol.  iii.  p.  284  ;  Maclain’s  translation  — quoted  by  Milner. 

2  See  the  Articles  on  the  Spanish  Inquisition,  and  on  John  IIuss  and  the  Hussites  ;  pp.  213, 191  seqq , 

o  See  the  third  Article  oti  Church  History  p.  57  seqq,  for  farther  details  on  the  reformation  in  Mngland 

4  In  the  Article  on  Ireland  and  the  Irish  —  p.  606  seqq.,  we  haTesketchedthesufferings  of  Catholic- 

Ireland  under  English  persecution. 


XXXIV 


INTRODUCTORY  ADDRESS. 


We  go  even  farther,  and  state,  as  a  fact  which  no  one  will  deny,  who 
retains  the  least  regard  for  historic  truth,  that  in  every  country  in  Europe 
where  the  rt  formation  succeeded,  Catholics  were  invariably  persecuted, 
almost  as  atrociouslv  and  for  nearlv  as  lonor  a  time,  as  in  EnMand  and 
Ireland.  Robbery,  sacrilege,  slander,  civil  commotions  and  bloodshed, 
were  everywhere  the  arms  with  which  incipient  Protestantism  assailed 
those,  whose  only  crime  was  their  honest  wish  to  adhere  to  the  faith,  and 
worship  at  the  altars  of  their  forefathers,  and  of  the  forefathers  of  those 
very  men  too  who  were  engaged  in  persecuting  them  !  Perhaps  in 
Switzerland,  an  old  Catholic  republic  with  some  remains  of  the  ancient 
Catholic  freedom,  the  persecuting  spirit  was  less  rampant  than  elsewhere  ; 
but  even  in  Switzerland,  with  its  o-lowinof  Catholic  memories  of  William 
Tell,  Furst,  and  Melchtal,  we  find  no  exception  to  the  remark  just  made. 
Even  there  the  fiercely  intolerant  spirit  of  the  early  reformers  was  not 
softened.  This  we  establish,  by  abundant  evidence,  in  a  special  Essay 
on  the  Reformation  in  Switzerland.' 

We  conclude  this  branch  of  the  subject  with  an  extract  from  the  Edin¬ 
burg  Review  — -an  unexceptionable  Protestant  authority  —  which  candidly 
places  in  its  true  light  the  character  of  the  self-styled  reformers,  in  the 
matter  of  persecution  :  ’ 

Protestant  writers,  in  general,  are  apt  to  describe  the  reformation  as 
a  struggle  for  religious  freedom.  .  .  .  Now,  we  humbly  apprehend,  that 
the  free  exercise  of  private  judgment  was  most  heartily  abhorred  by  the 
first  reformers,  except  only  where  the  persons  who  assumed  it  had  the 

good  fortune  to  be  exactly  of  their  opinion . The  martyrdoms  of 

Servetus,  in  Geneva,  and  of  Joan  Bocher,  in  England,  are  notable 
instances  of  the  religious  freedom  which  prevailed  in  the  pure  and 
primitive  state  of  the  Protestant  churches.  It  is  obvious,  also,  that  the 
freedom  for  which  our  first  reformers  so  strenuously  contended,  did  not, 
by  any  means,  include  a  freedom  to  think  as  the  Catholics  thought;  that 
is  to  say,  to  think  as  all  Europe  had  thought  for  many  ages,  and  as  the 
greatest  part  of  Europe  thought  at  the  very  time  and  continue  to  think  to 
this  very  day.  The  complete  extirpation  of  the  Catholic  Church,  not 
merely  as  a  public  establishment,  hut  as  a  tolerated  sect,  was  the  avowed 
object  of  our  first  reformers.  In  1560,  by  an  act  of  the  parliament,  which 
established  the  reformation  in  Scotland,  both  the  sayers  and  hearers  of 
Mass,  whether  in  public  or  in  private,  were,  for  the  first  oftense,  to  sutler 
confiscation  of  all  their  goods,  together  with  corporal  punishment,  at  the 
discretion  of  the  magistrate  ;  they  were  to  be  punished  by  banishment  for 
the  second  offense  ;  and  by  death  for  the  third !  .  .  .  .  It  was  not  possible 
for  the  most  bigoted  Catholic  to  inculcate  more  distinctly  the  complete 
extirpation  of  the  opinions  and  worship  of  the  .Protestants,  than  John 
Knox  inculcated  as  a  most  sacred  duty,  incumbent  on  the  civil  govern¬ 
ment  in  the,first  instance,  and  if  the  civil  government  is  remiss,  incumbent 

1  Page  234,  seqq. 

•'2  For  the  intolerant  character  of  the  early  English  reforme-s,  see  Article  III,  on  Church  llistort 

.57  seqq.  where  W9  give  Macaulay’s  portrait  of  Oranmer. 


INTRODUCTORY  ADDRESS. 


XXXV 


on  the  people,  to  extirpate  completely  the  opinions  and  worship  of  the 
Catholics,  and  even  to  massacre  the  Catholics,  man,  woman,  and  child. 
....  If  the  government  had  followed  the  directions  of  the  clergy,  the 
Catholics  would  have  been  extirpated  by  the  sword.  ...  In  the  reigns 
of  Charles  the  Second,  and  of  his  brother,  aProtesUint  prelacy,  in  alliance 
with  a  Protestant  administration,  outstript  the  wishes  of  those  arbitrary 
monarchs  in  the  persecution  of  their  Protestant  countrymen.  It  is 
needless  to  weary  ourselves  or  our  readers  with  disgusting  deUiils,  which 
the  curious  in  martyrology  may  find  in  various  publications.  Everybody 
knows  that  the  martyrdoms  were  both  numerous  and  cruel  but  perhaps 
the  comparative  mildness  of  the  Catholic  Church '•of  Scotland,  is  not  so 
generally  known.  Knox  has  investigated  the  matter  witii  commendable 
diligence,  but  has  not  been  able  to  muster  more  than  eighteen  martyrs 
who  perished  by  the  hand  of  the  executioner,  from  the  year  1500,  when 
here.sy  first  began,  till  1559,  when  the  Catholics  had  no  longer  the  power 
to  persecute.  ...  It  is,  indeed,  a  horrid  list  ;  but  far  short  of  the 
numbers,  who,  during  the  twenty-two  years  immediately  previous  to  the 
Revolution,  were  capitally  executed  in  Scotland  for  the  ^  wicked  error  ^  of 
separation  from  the  worship  of  the  Protesfiint  Episcopal  Church.”  * 

■  While  we  heartily  unite  with  every  lover  of  freedom  in  condemning 
all  acts  of  persecution  for  conscience  sake,  or  for  religious  opinions 
not  subversive  of  morality  or  the  public  safety,  candor  will  compel 
even  our  adversaries  to  acknowledge,  that  in  the  persecution  of  Catholics 
by  Protestants,  there  were  aggravating  circumstances,  which  were  not 
found  in  the  persecution  of  the  latter  by  the  former.  Protestant  persecu* 
tion  was  purely  aggressive ;  Catholic  persecution  was  mainly  defensive : 
the  former  sought  to  rob  Catholics  of  all  they  held  most  dear}  the  latter 
was  directed  chiefly  towards  maintaining  the  most  undoubted  and  most 
sacred  rights.  Catholics  were  in  possession ;  Protestants  aimed  at  violently 
ousting  them  from  their  firesides  and  their  altars,  and  taking  their  place. 
Catholics  sought  to  preserve  the  ancient  faith  and  worship,  hallowed  and 
rendered  dear  by  a  thousand  glorious  memories ;  Protestants  sought  to 
substitute  for  it,  frequently  by  violence,  new  doctrines  and  new  forms, 
about  which  they  were  not  themselves  agreed,  and  which  they  claimed 
the  right  of  changing  as  often  as  they  might  judge  proper. 

Waiving  all  this,  however,  let  us  strike  evenly  the  balance  of  persecu¬ 
tion  in  the  past ;  burying  whatever  is  unpleasant  in  generous  oblivion,  and 
forgiving  as  we  liope  to  be  forgiven.  Now,  how  stands  the  account  of 
religious  persecution  at  the  present  day  ?  Is  all  the  intolerance  on  the 
side  of  Catholics  ?  Or  have  not  Protestants  at  least  their  own  full  share 
of  the  guilt,  which  they  are  so  free  to  chai'ge  exclusively  on  others  ?  Let 
us  see. 

The  impartial  comparison  between  Catholic  and  Protestant  countries,  on 

1  Bdlnbargh  lleyiew,  Article  VIII.,  entitled  “  Toleration  of  the  Reformers,”  No.  53. 


^\'XV1 


INTRODUCTORY  ADDRESS. 


the  subject  of  persecution  in  late  years,  exhibits  a  fearful  balance  against 
the  latter.  It  may  be  stated  without  exaggeration,  that  there  is  scarcely 
a  Protestant  country  on  the  face  of  the  earth,  which  does  not  even  at  this 
enlightened  day,  persecute  Catholics,  in  one  form  or  another,  or  which  has 
not  persecuted  them  during  the  present  century  ;  while  there  is,  on  the  con¬ 
trary,  scarcely  a  Catholic  nation  in  the  world,  which  does  persecute,  or 
has  recently  persecuted  Protestants.  Strange  as  this  may  sound  in  the 
ears  of  those  who  have  been  misled  into  the  persuasion,  that  the  Catholic 
is  essentially  a  persecuting  Church,  and  that  we  owe  religious  freedom 
entirely  to  Protestantism,  it  is  nevertheless  true.  Here  are  the  facts  ;  and 
first  oil  the  Catholic  side. 

France  is  Catholic,  and  France  not  only  grants  the  fullest  liberty  of 
worship  to  her  small  number  of  Protestant  citizens,  but  she  even  pays 
their  ministers  out  of  the  public  treasury.  Austria  is  Catholic  ;  and 
Austria,  despotic  though  she  be  usually  represented,  concedes  a  full 
measure  of  religious  liberty  to  the  Protestant  minority,  allowing  them  even 
to  have  their  own  separate  schools,  supported,  like  those  of  the  Catholic 
majority,  from  the  common  fund.*  Bavaria  is  Catholic,  and  Bavaria  also 
‘allows  equal  civil  and  religious  privileges  to  her  Protestant  subjects. 
Beloium  is  Catholic,  and  Beluium  has  a  fundamental  law,  o'rantin(>-  unre- 
stricted  and  equal  religious  freedom  to  all.  Italy,  Spain,  and  Poitugal, 
•with  perhaps  some  of  the  colonies  of  the  two  last,  may  be  thought  to  form 
exceptions  to  this  general  rule  ;  but  though  their  policy  be  somewhat 
proscriptive  on  the  score  of  religion,  we  read  of  no  acts  of  persecution, 
worthy  the  name,  having  been  recently  perpetrated  therein.  In  the  first 
place,  they  evidently  could  not  have  been  guilty  of  persecuting  their 
Protestant  citizens,  for  the  very  simple  reason  that  they  have  no  Protestant 
citizens.  If  they  are  jealous,  especially  of  English  Protestants,  who 
sometimes  pass  tanjugh  those  countries,  distributing  tracts  and  Bibles,  it 
has  generally  happened,  because  England  has  rendered  herself  justly  odious 
on  the  continent  of  Europe  by  her  constant  political  intrigues  among  her 
neighbors,  often  carried  on  under  the  guise  of  religious  zeal ;  and  because 
her  tract  distributers  are  suspected,  frequently  with  too  much  reason,  of 
being  political  propagandists,  and  secret  agents  paid  for  their  services. 

The  intrigues  of  Lord  Minto  in  Italy,  and  those  of  Bulwer  and  others 
in  Spain,  are  too  well  known  to  require  proof.  One  of  the  principal  means 
employed  by  the  hired  agents  of  these  men  for  strengthening  English 
influence,  was  the  distribution  of  Bibles  and  tracts,  and  the  accompanying 


1  The  authority  fur  this  statement  will  be  given  a  little  farther  on. 


INTRODUCTORY  ADDRESS. 


XXX  Vli 


efi'orts  to  make  proselytes  among  the  Catholic  inhabitants.  The  intrigue, 
however,  was  unsuccessful ;  Bulwer  was  compelled  to  leave  Spain,  and 
Minto  is  now  detested  in  Italy  as  never  was  man  detested  before.  The 
affair  of  the  Madiai,  about  which  so  great  an  outcry  was  lately  made,  may 
be  easily  explained  in  this  way.  Their  imprisonment  was  the  result  ot 
their  active  attempts  at  proselytism,  as  paid  emissaries  of  England  ;  not 
of  their  wish  to  profess  and  practise  religious  principles  opposed  to  those 
of  the  Catholic  majority.  It  is  a  notorious  fact,  that  in  both  Italy  and 
Spain,  Protestant  travelers  or  temporary  residents  are  never  molested  on 
account  of  peculiarities  in  their  religious  creed  or  worship ;  provided  they, 
on  their  side,  do  not  interfere  with  the  faith  and  worship  of  the  Catholic 
population.  The  Anglican  church  and  our  American  Protestants  have 
places  of  worship  at  Rome  itself,  under  the  eyes  and  with  the  permission 
of  the  Pope ;  who  not  only  allows  them  to  assemble  therein  for  religious 
purposes  as  often  as  they  wish,  but  protects  them  in  the  enjoyment  of 
their  religious  freedom.  Protestants  have  similar  religious  privileges  in 
Tuscany,  and  elsewhere  in  Italy,  At  Rome,  at  Florence,  at  Leghorn, 
and  in  other  places,  they  have  also  their  separate  cemeteries.  If  this  latter 
privilege  has  not  as  yet  been  granted  to  Protestant  strangers  sojourning  in 
Spain,  we  have  little  doubt  that  it  will  soon  be  conceded ;  whenever,  in 
fact,  it  will  be  demanded  in  a  proper  manner,  by  a  sufficient  number  of 
Protestants  to  render  a  separate  burial  place  an  object  of  importance  or 
necessity.  The  only  complaint  which  the  very  few  non-Catholics  passing 
through,  or  residing  for  a  time  in  Spain,  can  now  make  on  this  subject  is, 
that  in  case  of  death  they  are  not  buried  in  ground  expressly  set  apart  and 
blessed  for  Catholic  interment,  or  with  the  solemnities  which  usually 
accompany  the  Catholic  funeral ;  —  privileges  which  they  would  scarcely 
covet,  even  in  this  free  country.  Those  who  make  so  much  noise  about 
Spanish  intolerance  in  the  matter  of  Protestant  funerals,  wholly  lose  sight 
of,  or  purposely  conceal  the  fact,  that  in  Protestant  Eng’land  —  wiiere  there 
are  a  thousand  resident  Catliolic  citizens  for  every  Protestant  stranger  in 
Spain — Catholics  are  not  allowed  to  be  buried,  with  any  pomp  or  cere¬ 
monial,  in  the  public  cemeteries  ;  though  these  are,  in  many  instances, 
old  Catholic  burial  grounds,  wrested  by  violence  from  their  original 
Catholic  purpose  by  the  English  Protestant  government !  The  Catholics 
of  England  have  thus  much  more  reason  to  complain  on  this  subject,  than 
have  the  very  few  Protestants  who  may  happen  to  be  for  a  time  in  Spain, 
Let  us  now  take  a  rapid  glance  at  the  Protestant  nations  of  Europe. 

In  all  of  them,  without  an  exception  known  to  us,  there  is  an  established 
D 


xxxvm 


•INTRODUCTORY  ADDRESS. 


religion,  with  a  union  of  Church  and  State.  In  the  freest  amongst  them 
all  —  England  —  Catholics  are  barely  tolerated ;  they  are  con  tinually  loaded 
with  obloquy  and  abuse,  and  are  frequently  made  the  victims  of  petty 
legal  enactments.  Witness  the  Ecclesiastical  Titles’ Bill ;  the  late  savage 
outbreak  of  indignation  at  the  re-establishment  of  the  Catholic  hierarchy; 
the  bitter  prosecution  of  Dr.  Newman ;  and  the  monster  grievance  of  all 
—  the  bloated  church  establishment  —  fattened  on  the  sweat  and  blood  of 
the  crushed  and  down-trodden  masses  of  the  people.  Protestant  Holland 
recently  persecuted  her  Catholic  subjects  to  such  an  extent,  as  to  drive 
them  into  a  rebellion,  the  result  of  which  was  the  independence  of  Catholic 
Belgium.  Protestant  Prussia  lately  imprisoned  the  venerable  Archbishop 
of  Cologne,  to  compel  him  to  sacrifice  his  conscientious  convictions  ;  and 
Protestant  Baden  is  now  actively  engaged  in  a  similar  disgraceful  perse¬ 
cution  of  tlie  venerable  Archbishop  Vicari,  of  Freyburg,  and  of  liis  clergy, 
for  the  same  unhallowed  motive.  But  the  Archbisliop  of  Freyburg  is 
destined  to  triumph  over  the  intolerant  Protestant  government  of  the 
Grand  Duke,  as  he  of  Cologne  triumphed  over  the  persecuting  Prussian 
monarch.'  In  Protestant  Sweden,  he  who  dares  become  a  Catholic  is 
banished  the  country,  and  his  property  is  confiscated  to'  the  state  ;  and  we 
believe  a  similar  law  exists  in  Protestant  Denmark.  In  Sweden,  but  a 
few  years  ago,  the  distinguished  painter  Nilsen  suffered  the  full  penalty 
of  this  iniquitous  law;  and  more  recently  still  several  ladies,  distinguished 
for  their  piety,  have  had  the  same  severe  sentence  passed  on  them.  Heart¬ 
less  must  be  the  persecutor,  who  does  not  spare  even  the  weakness  of 
woman  !  Finally,  every  one  knows  bow  fiercely  the  Swiss  Protestants 
raged  against  the  Catholics,  when  the  latter  were  overpowered  by  superior 
numbers  in  the  late  civil  war,  brought  about  itself  by  the  most  reckless 
Protestant  intolerance ;  how  the  holy  Bishop  of  Lausanne  and  Geneva  was 
banished  from  his  country  ;  how  the  Jesuits  were  expelled,  and-  the  poor 
defenseless  nuns  were  driven  from  their  convents ;  how  church  property 
was  confiscated,  including  even  that  of  the  benevolent  monks  of  Mount 
St.  Bernard,  who  had  saved  so  many  valuable  Protestant  lives  amidst  the 
snows  of  the  Alps  ;  and  how  an  iron  yoke  was  there  placed  on  the  necks 
of  the  down-trodden  Catholic  minority. 

If  there  be  a  Protestant  country  in  the  world,  which  has  not  even 
lecently  persecuted  Catholics,  we  have  not  yet  learned  its  name  ;  and  it 
ill  becomes  our  opponents  to  charge  a/l  the  persecution  on  the  Catholic 

1  What  aggravates  the  liardship  of  the  persecution  in  regard  to  botli  these  distinguished  Catholic 
prelates,  is  the  circumstance,  that  both  were  octogenarians  of  irreproachable  character,  whoso  age 
and  virtues  should  have  protected  them  from  such  outrages. 


INTRODUCTORY  ADDRESS. 


XXXIX 


Church.  A  persistence  in  preferring  such  an  accusation,  against  ah 
evidence,  reminds  us  of  the  fable  concerning  the  wolf  and  the  lamb.  It 
was  the  lamb  who  always  muddled  the  stream  !  No  one  can  contravene 
these  facts  ,  and  if  they  be  unpleasant,  we  have  at  least  the  consolation 
to  think  that  we  had  no  agency  in  making  them/ad^/  and  that  we  allege 
them  at  present  only  in  self- vindication. 

Even  in  our  own  country,  though  it  boasts  so  loudly  of  its  freedom, 
how  often  have  Catholics  been  made  the  victims  of  reliofious  intolerance  ! 
Every  one  knows  the  fierce  spirit  which  is  now  invoked  against  them ; 
every  one  remembers  the  smouldering  ruins  of  the  Ursuline  Convent  on 
Mount  Benedict,  and  those  of  the  Philadelphia  Churches  burned  by  a 
savage  mob  ;  and  all  are  acquainted  with  those  more  recent  outrages 
against  our  religious  liberties  to  which  we  have  already  alluded.  We 
may  add,  that  in  some  of  our  hospitals,  alms-houses,  and  other  public 
institutions,  supported  by  the  money  of  all.  Catholics  are  often  denied 
the  services  of  their  clergymen  and  the  consolations  of  religion,  even  at 
their  dying  hour  !  ‘ 

On  the  contrary,  have  Catholics  ever  persecuted,  or  have  they  ever 
shown  even  the  slightest  disposition  to  persecute,  their  dissenting  brethren 
in  this  country  ?  If  they  have,  we  desire  to  know  when  and  where  they 
made  the  attempt.  One  thing  is  certain,  —  and  no  one  can  deny  it,  or  rob 
them  of  tliis  glory  ;  —  they  were  the  first  who  reared  on  tliis  broad 
eontinent,  in  their  own  noble  colony  of  Maryland,  the  glorious  banner 
of  civil  and  religious  liberty.  All  must  award  them  this  praise;  which 
they  deserve  the  more,  because,  at  that  very  time,  the  Puritans  of  New 
England,  and  the  Episcopalians  of  Virginia  were  busily  engaged  in 
persecuting  their  brother  Protestants  for  conscience  sake  ;  ^  and  the 
former  were  moreover  enacting  proscriptive  blue  laws,  and  hanging 
witches  !  * 

II.  Come  we  now  to  the  other  charge  against  Catholics; — that  they 
cannot,  consistently  with  their  principles,  be  good  citizens  of  a  republican 
government.  Catholics  cannot  consistently  be  republicans  !  And  pray, 
who  originated  all  the  free  principles  which  lie  at  the  basis  of  our  own 
noble  constitution  ?  Who  gave  us  trial  by  jury,  habeas  corpus,  stationary 
courts,  and  the  principle, —  for  which  we  fought  and  conquered  in  our 
revolutionary  struggle  against  Proteskint  England, —  that  taxes  are  not  tc 
be  levied  without  the  free  consent  of  those  who  pay  them  ?  Are  w'e 

1  Cases  of  this  petty  persecution  have  occurred  in  Cincinnati,  nnJ  in  other  places,  particularly  ia^ 
the  Eastern  and  Northern  States.  2  See  Bancroft’s  History —  Maryland 

3  For  full  details  on  this  subject,  read  the  Essays  on  Our  Colonial  Blue  Laws,  P.  333,  seqq. 


xl  IJTTRODUCTORY  ADDRESS. 

indebted  to  Protestantism  for  even  one  of  these  cardinal  elements  of  free 
government  ?  No ;  not  for  one.  They  all  date  back  to  the  good  old 
Catholic  times,  in  the  middle  ages  —  some  three  hundred  years  before 
the  dawn  of  the  reformation  !  Our  Catholic  forefathers  gave  tliem  all  to 
us  ;  not  one  of  them  do  we  owe  to  Protestants. 

Again,  we  are  indebted  to  Catholics  for  all  tlie  republics  which  evei 
existed  in  Christian  times,  down  to  the  year  1776  ;  for  those  of  Switzer¬ 
land,  Venice,  Genoa,  Andorra,  San  Marino,  and  a  host  of  minor  free 
commonwealths,  which  sprang  up  in  the  “dark”  ages.  Some  of  these 
republics  lingered  until  a  comparatively  recent  date  ;  some  still  exist, 
proud  monuments  and  unanswerable  evidences  of  Catholic  devotion  to 
freedom.  These  facts  no  one  can  deny  ;  they  stand  out  too  boldly  on  the 
historic  record.  They  are  acknowledged  by  Protestants,  no  less  than  by 
Catholics.  We  subjoin  the  testimony  of  an  able  writer  in  the  New  York 
Tribune,  believed  to  be  Bayard  Taylor,  who  is  connected  with  the 
management  of  that  journal.  This  distinguished  traveler  —  a  staunch 
Protestant  —  appeals  to  history,  and  speaks  from  personal  observation. 
He  writes  : 

“  Truth  compels  us  to  add  that  the  oldest  republic  now  existing  is  that 
of  San  Marino,  not  only  Catholic  but  wholly  surrounded  by  the  especial 
dominion  of  the  Popes,  who  might  have  crushed  it  like  an  egg-shell  at 
anv  time  these  last  thousand  vears  —  but  thev  didn’t.  Tlieonlv  republic 
we  ever  traveled  in  besides  our  own  is  Switzerland,  half  of  its  cantons  or 
states  entirely  Catholic,  yet  never  tliat  we  have  heard  of  unfaithful  (o  the 
cause  of  freedom.  They  vvere  nearly  all  Roman  Catholics,  from-  the 
southern  cantons  of  Switzerland,  whom  Austria  so  ruthlessly  expelled 
from  Lombardy  after  the  suppression  of  the  last  revolt  iu  Milan,  ac¬ 
counting  them  natural  born  republicans  and  revolutionists  ;  and  we 
suppose  Austria  is  not  a  Know-Nothing  on  this  point.  We  never  heard 
the  Catholics  of  Hungary  accused  of  backwardness  in  the  late  glorious 
struggle  of  their  country  for  freedom,  though  its  leaders  were  Protestants, 
fighting  against  a  leading  Catholic  power  avowedly  in  favor  of  religious 
;as  well  as  civil  liberty.  And  chivalric;,  unhappy  Pidand,  almost  wholly 
Catholic,  has  made  as  gallant  struggles  for  freedom  as  any  other  nation, 
while  of  the  three  despotisms  that  crushed  her  but  one  was  Catholic. 
But  enough.  We  do  not  hope  to  stop  the  crusade  of  intolerance  and 
violence  now  setting  against  the  Catholics,  calling  for  their  disfranchise- 
ment,  and  thi'eatening  their  temporary  exclusion  from  all  public  trusts. 
Epidemics  of  this  sort  must  have  their  course  ;  and  this  one  has  some 
truth  and  a  large  amount  of  honest  bigotry  on  which  to  base  its  operations. 
Quite  a  number,  whose  religion  never  till  now  did  them  much  good  or 
liarm,  will  ride  into  office  on  the  back  of  their  resonant  Protestantism, 
and  that  will  be  the  end  of  the  matter.” 

The  reformation  dawned  on  the  world  in  the  year  1517.  What  did  U 
do  for  the  cause  of  human  freeilom  from  that  date,  down  to  1776  —  when 
our  owv.  tepublic  arose?  Did  it  strike  one  blow  for  liberty  during  these 


INTRODUCTORY  ADDRESS. 


xll 


two  centuries  and  a  half?  Did  it  originate  one  republican  principle,  or 
found  one  solitary  republic  ?  Not  one.  In  Germany,  where  it  had  full 
sway,  it  ruthlessly  trampled  in  the  dust  all  the  noble  franchises  of  the 
Catholic  middle  ages;  it  established  political  despotism  every  where  ;  it 
united  church  and  state  ;  in  a  word  it  brought  about  that  very  state  of 
thi  ngs  which  continues  to  exist,  with  but  slight  amelioration,  even  down 
to  the  present  day.  In  England,  it  did  the  same  ;  it  broke  down  the 
bulwarks  of  the  British  constitution,  derived  from  the  Catholic  Mao-na 

O 

Charta ;  it  set  at  naught  popular  rights,  and  gave  to  the  king  or  queen 
unlimited  power  in  church  and  state  ;  and  it  required  a  bloody  struggle 

and  a  revolution,  one  hundred  and  fifty  years  afterwards,  to  restore  to 

0 

something  of  their  former  integrity  the  old  chartered  rights  of  the  British 
1 

Thus  Protestantism  has  boasted  much,  but  it  has  really  done  little  for 
the  cause  of  human  freedom.  But  are  we  not  at  least  indebted  to  it  for 
our  own  revolution,  and  for  the  liberties  which  it  has  secured  for  us?  We 
cheerfully  award  to  our  Protestant  fellow-citizens  the  praise,  which  is  so 
justly  due  them,  for  their  share  in  the  glorious  struggle ;  but  they  should 
also,  in  common  justice,  allow  to  Catholics  the  credit  of  having  zealously 
co-operated  with  them,  to  the  full  extent  of  their  means,  in  bringing  about 
a  result  so  glorious  and  so  beneficial.  He  who  was  the  most  wealthy 
among  the  signers  of  our  Declaration  of  Independence,  and  who  conse¬ 
quently  periled  most  in  putting  his  name  to  that  instrument,  was  the 
Catholic  Charles  Carroll,  of  Carrolton;  whom  Providence  permitted 
to  survive  all  his  fellow-patriots,  as  if  to  rebuke  the  fierce  and  anti-repub¬ 
lican  spirit  of  intolerance,  which  was  so  soon  to  be  evoked  from  the 
abyss  against  his  brethren  in  religion.  Catholic  soldiers  fought  side  by 
side  with  their  Protestant  brethren  in  the  patriotic  struggle ;  and  when  our 
energies  were  exhausted,  and  the  stoutest  hearts  entertained  the  most 
gloomy  forebodings  as  to  the  final  issue.  Catholic  France  stepped  gallantly 
forth  to  the  rescue  of  our  infant  freedom,  almost  crushed  by  an  over¬ 
whelming  English  Protestant  tyranny  !  ^  Many  of  our  most  sagacious 
statesmen  have  believed,  that,  but  for  this  timely  aid,  our  Declaration  of 
Independence  could  scarcely  have  been  made  good. 

Our  enemies  point,  with  an  air  of  triumph,  to  the  principles  of 
Washington.  We  cheerfully  accept  the  appeal.  After  the  struggle  was 
over,  and  Washington  was  unanimously  elected  first  President  of  the 

1  For  more  on  this  subject,  see  the  E.'Say  on  the  Influence  of  Catholicity  on  Civil  Liberty;  Pago 
131,  seqq. 

2  Catholic  Spain  also  subsequently  lent  us  her  aid  against  England 

1)2 


xlli 


INTRODUCTORY  AD*DRESS. 


/ 


new  republic,  he  received  a  congratulatory  address  from  tlie  Catholics  of 
the  country,  in  which  the  following  passage  •is  found  : 

“  This  prospect  of  national  prosperity  is  peculiarly  pleasing  to  us  on 
another  account,  because  whilst  our  country  preserves  her  freedom  and 
independence,  we  shall  have  a  well  founded  titl^  to  claim  from  her  justice 
equal  rights  of  citizenship,  as  the  price  of  our  blood  spilt  under  your 
eyes,  and  of  our  common  exertions  for  her  defense  under  your  auspicious 
conduct;  rights  rendered  more  dear  to  us  by  the  rememberance  of  former 
hardships.”  ‘ 

To  this  portion  of  the  Address,  the  father  of  his  country  replied  as 
follows : 

« 

“  As  mankind  become  more  liberal,  they  will  be  more  apt  to  allow,  that 
all  those  who  conduct  themselves  as  worthy  members  of  the  community 
are  equally  entitled  to  the  protection  of  civil  government.  I  hope  ever 
to  see  America  among  the  foremost  nations  in  examples  of  justice  and 
liberality.  And  I  presume  that  your  fellow-citizens  will  not  forget  the 
patriotic  part  which  you  took  in  the  accomplishment  of  their  revolution^  and 
the  establishment  of  their  government ;  or,  the  important  assistance  they 
received  from  a  nation  in  which  the  Roman  Qutholic  faith  is  professed’*  ’ 

We  ask  no  more  than  that  to  which  Washington  believed  us  justly 

entitled, — -‘a  fair  share  in  the  civil  and  religious  liberties  which  our 

\ 

fathers  aided  to  secure  equally  to  all  American  citizens.  We  ask  for  no 
exclusive  privilege  whatsoever  ;  we  claim  only  our  clear  and  undoubted 
rifj-hts,  in  common  with  our  fellow-citizens. 

But  are  not  Catholics  the  subjects  of  a  foreign  prince,  the  Pope?  This 
slander  —  like  almost  everything  else  said  against  us — has  been  refuted 
so  many  thousand  times  already,  that  we  are  almost  afraid  to  tire  the 
patience,  or  insult  the  understanding  of  our  readers  by  answering  it 
again.  No  man  of  common  intelligence  or  information  need  be  told,  at 
this  late  day,  that  the  obedience  we  owe  to  the  Pope  is  confined  entirely 
to  religion  and  to  spiritual  things  ;  and  that  he  neither  claims,  nor  we 
allow,  any  jurisdiction  over  us  in  temporal  matters  affecting  our  civil 
allegiance.  This  question  has  been  so  long  settled  throughout  the  civilized 
world,  that  its  revival  at  present  appears  to  be  wholly’  useless,  if  not 
utterly  absurd.^  When  it  was  a  question,  more  than  sixty  years  ago,  of 
removing  some  of  the  cruel  penal  laws  under  w'hich  the  Catholics  of 

1  'I'he  Address  was  signed  by  bishop  <'arroll  of  baltiinore.  on  the  part  of  the  Catholic  clergy,  and 
by  Charles  Carroll  of  Carrolton,  Daniel  Carroll,  Thomas  Firziiniuons,  and  Dominic  l,yuch,  on  the  part 
tf  the  Catholic  laity.  See  Biographical  Sketch  of  the  .Most  llev.  John  Carroll,  by  John  Carroll 
Brent;  p  146,  147. 

2  Spark’s  Life  and  Writings  of  Washington,  Yol.  xii 

3  As  esrly  as  the  beginning  of  the  seventeenth  century,  St.  Franci.s  de  Sales  deprecated  the 
discussion  of  this  question  on  many  accounts,  and  among  other  rea.sons,  because  he  considered  it 
“useless,  sijice  the  I’ojus,  in  fact,  at  that  day  asked  nothing  of  kings  and  princes  in  this  respect  — 
Z/ii/ti/e,  pareequd  le  Pape,  par  le  fait,  no  demando  rieii  aujourd’iiui  aux  roisetaux  princes  pour  ce 
regard.*’  Isjtter  to  a  Lady.  Vie  du  Saint,  par  lo  Cure  de  St.  Sulpice, —  in  2  volumes.  Vol.  ii,  p. 
106 :  Paris  1854. 


INTRODUCTORY  ADDRESS. 


xllii 

.England  had  been  so  long  suffering,  this  very  question  in  regard  to  the 
nature  and  extent  of  papal  jurisdiction  was  discussed  ;  and  it  was  then 
settled  to  the  entire  satisfaction  of  Mr.  Pitt  and  of  the  whole  British 
parliament,  which  accordingly  passed  the  Catholic  Relief  Bill.*  The 
oatli  of  allegiance  freely  taken  by  Catholic  bishops,  and  members  of 
parli  ament,  and  officers  of  the  government  in  Great  Britain  and  Ireland, 
with  the  sanction  of  the  Popes  themselves,  expressly  disclaims  belief  in 
any  civil  power  or  jurisdiction  over  British  subjects,  as  inherent  in  the 
sovereiu'n  Pontiffs. 

To  prevent  all  possibility  of  misunderstanding  on  this  subject,  and  to 
remove  every  pretext  for  calumny,  the  Popes  authorized  a  change  in  the 
oath  taken  by  a  Bishop  at  his  cqnsecration,  striking  out  ail  obscure  clauses 
of  feudal  origin,  and  retaining  those  only  which  promised  obedience  in 
spirituals.  What  more  than  this  could  be  asked  by  any  reasonable  man, 
for  the  final  settlement  of  the  question  ?  The  Catholic  bishops  of  the 
United  States,  with  the  express  sanction  of  Rome,  take  the  oath,  as 
tlms  modified;  and  they  have  more  than  once  officially  declared,  both 
individually  and  in  their  collective  capacity,  their  solemn  belief  that  the 
Roman  Pontiff  has  none  but  spiritual  power  and  jurisdiction,  outsijle  of 
his  own  immediate  states.  The  first  Catholic  bishop  of  the  country  — 
tlie  venerable  Carroll,  of  Biiltimore,^ —  wrote  as  follows  on  this  subject, 
in  a  Pastoral  Letter  issued  February  22,  1797  :* 

“  There  would  indeed  a  foundation  for  the  reproach  intended  by  the 
words  foreign  jurisdiction^  if  we  acknowledged  in  the  successor  of  St. 
Peter  any  power  or  prerogative,  which  clashed  in  the  least  degree  with 
the  duty  we  owe  to  our  country  or  its  laws.  To  our  country  we  owe 
allegiance  and  the  tejider  of  our  best  services  and  property,  when  they 
are  necessary  for  its  defense  ;  to  the  Vicar  of  Christ  we  owe  obedience 
in  things  purely  spiritual.  Happily,  there  is  no  competition  in  their 
respective  claims  on  us,  nor  any  difficulty  in  rendering  to  botli  the 
submission  which  they  have  a  right  to  claim.  Our  countrv  commands, 

1  Mr.  I’itt  made  inquiries  on  this  subject  at  the  C<\tho!ic  uiiiTe’'sities  of  the  Sorbonne.  Louvain, 
Douay.  Aicala,  and  Salamanca.  Their  answers  were  all  distinct  and  unanimous,  as  follows : 

I.  That  the  Pope  or  cardinals,  or  any  body  of  men,  or  any  individual  of  the  Church  of  Koine,  haa 
not,  i.or  have,  any  civil  authority  power,  jurisdiccion,  or  pre-eminence  whatsoever,  within  the  realm 
of  En.^iaiid. 

II.  Thar,  the  Pope,  or  cardinals,  or  any  body  of  men,  ermy  individual  of  the  Church  of  Home,  cannot 
absolve  or  dispense  with  his  Majesty’s  subjects  from  their  oath  of  allegiance,  upon  any  pretext 
what.'ioever. 

Ill  'That  there  is  no  princijile  in  the  tenets  of  the  Catho'ii  faith,  by  which  Catholics  are  justified  in 
not  keeping  faith  with  heretics,  or  other  persons  differing  from  them  in  religious  opinions,  in  any 
trau>actions.  eir.iier  of  a  public  or  a  private  nature. 

Si-e  tile  documents,  at  greater  length,  in  butler’s  Book  of  the  Church,  Appendix  I ,  p.  287-8. 

2  It  may  not  be  generally  known,  that  Dr  Franklin,  when  niinisteT  to  France,  had  several 
conferences  with  the  Xuncio  Of  the  Pope  on  the  subject  of  having  a  Catholic  bishop  appo'uted  for 
Americ.a ;  that  he  approved  of  the  plan,  in  order  that  American  Catholics  mi)^ht  not  be  dependent 
on  an  English  bishop  ;  and  that  he  recommended  for  the  post  Dr. , Carroll,  his  fc'end  and  tomp.inioo 
In  the  mi.'Sion  to  Canada. 

3  Biographical  Sketch,  &c.,  sup.  cit.  P.  137-8. 


xliv 


I,N  T  RO  D  U  C  T  0  R  Y  ADDRESS. 


and  enf(»rnes  by  outward  coercion,  the  services  whicli  tend  to  the 
preservation  and  defense  of  tliat  personal  security,  and  of  that  property, 
for  the  sake  of  which  political  societies  were  formed,  and  men  agreed  to 
live  under  the  protecdi»n  of,  and  in  obedience  to  civil  g'overnmenc.  The 
Vicar  of  Christ,  as  visible  head  of  His  Church,  watches  over  the  integrity 
and  soundness  of  doctrine,  and  makes  use  of  means  and  weapons  that  act 
only  on  tiie  souls  of  men,  to  enforce  the  duties  of  religion,  the  purity  of 
worship,  and  eccJesiastical  discipline.” 

Our  bishops,  assembled  in  solemn  council  at  Baltimore,  have  often  pub¬ 
licly  proclaimed  principles  identical  with  those  just  announced,  as  emanating 
from  the  venerable  founder  of  our  hierarchy.  We  can  make  room  for  but 
two  extracts,  the  first  of  which  is  taken  from  a  Pastoral  Letter  issued  by 
them  in  the  sixth  provincial  council  of  Baltimore,  held  in  May,  1846 ;  from 
which  it  will  be  seen  that  our  bishops,  ,in  their  collective  and  official 
capacity,  are  very  plain  and  explicit  in  their  declarations  on  this  very  point : 

“  The  pateiMial  authority  of  the  chief  Bishop  is  constantly  misrepresented 
and  a‘=:sailed  by  the  adversaries  of  our  holy  religion,  especially  in  this 
country,  and  is  viewed  with  suspicion  even  by  some  who  acknowledge  its 
powerful  inliuence  in  preserving  faith  and  unity.  It  is  unnecessary  for  us 
to  tell  you,  brethren,  thattlie  kingdom  of  Christ,  of  which  the  Bishop  of 
Rome,  as  successor  of  Peter,  has  received  the  keys,  is  not  of  this  world; 
and  that  the  obedience  due  to  the  Vicar  of  the  Saviour  is  in  no  way  incon¬ 
sistent  with  your  civil  allegiance,  your  social  duties  as  citizens,  or  your 
rights  as  men.  We  can  confidently  appeal  to  the  whole  tenor  of  our  instruc¬ 
tions,  not  only  in  our  public  addresses,  but  in  our  most  confidential 
communications,  and  you  can  bear  witness  that  we  have  always  taught 
YOU  to  render  to  Caesar  the  things  which  are  Caesar’s,  to  God  the  things 
which  are  God’s.  Be  not,  then,  heedful  of  the  misrepresentations  of 
foolish  men,  who,  unable  to  combat  the  evidences  of  our  faith,  seek  to 
excite  unjust  prejudice  against  that  authority  which  has  always  proved  its 
firmest  support.  Continue  to  practise  justice  and  charity  towards  all  your 
fellow-citizens —  respect  the  magistrates — observe  the  laws  —  shun  tumult 
and  disorder,  as  free,  and  not  as  having  liberty  as  a  cloak  for  malice,  but 
as  the  servants  of  God.  You,  brethren,  have  been  called  unto  liberty  : 
only  make  not  liberty  an  occasion  to  the  flesh,  but  by  charity  of  the  spirit, 
serve  one  another.  For  all  the  law  is  fulfilled  in  one  word  :  Tliou  siialt 
love  thy  neighbor  as  thyself.  Thus  you  will  put  to  shame  the  calumnia¬ 
tors  of  our  holy  faith,  and  vindicate  it  more  effectually,  than  by  any  abstract 
profession  or  disclaimer.” 

But  there  is  another  declaration,  made  by  the  bishops  who  composed 
the  fifth  council  of  Baltimoi-e,  held  in  May,  1843,  which  has  even  more 
weight  in  settling  this  question  ;  because  it  occurs  in  an  official  Letter 
addressed  to  the  Pope  by  the  assembled  American  prelates.  The 
Poniift’,  far  from  being  offended  at  so  explicit  a  disavowal  by  the 
American  bishops  of  all  papal  authority  and  jurisdiction  in  merely  civil 
matteis,  says  in  his  official  answer:  “Your  letter 'was  most  pleasing  to 
us  ;  ”  '  and  he  praises  the  zeal  of  our  prelates.  Here  is  the  extract 


1  Gratissimae  Nobia  fuere  Vestrae  Literae. 


INTRODUCTORY  ADDRESS. 


xly 


illuded  to  ;  —  the  bishops  are  speaking  of  tlie  efforts  made  by  our  enemies 
fcO  put  down  the  Church  in  this  country  : 

“  They  spread  doubtful  rumors  against  us  among  the  people  ;  with 
untiring  efforts,  they  circulate  among  the  ignorant  and  uninformed  books, 
which  calumniate  our  most  holy  religion  ;  they  leave  no  means  untried 
to  infect  with  their  errors  their  Catholic  servants  ;  and  .  .  .  although  our 
forefathers  poured  out  their  blood  like  water  for  the  defense  of  our 
liberties  against  a  Protestant  oppressor,  they  yet  seek  to  render  us,  their 
fellow  citizens,  suspected  by,  and  odious  to  the  government,  by  falsely 
asserting  that  we  are  reduced  to  servitude  under  the  civil  and  political 
jurisdiction  of  a  foreign  j)rince,  namely  of  the  Roman  Pontiff,  and  that  we 
are  therefore  unfaithful  to  the  republic  /  ”  ‘ 

But  did  not  the  Popes  formerly  claim  the  right  of  deposing  princes,  and 
of  absolving  their  subjects  from  the  oath  of  allegiance  ?  They  certainly  . 
did ;  and  so  did  we  claim  the  same  right,  when  we  deposed  George  III., 
and  declared  ourselves  “  absolved”  from  our  oath  of  allegiance  to  him  : 
and  as  our  claim  was  assuredly  nothing  against  liberty,  but  all  for  liberty, 
so  was  also  that  of  the  Popes.  In  every  instance  of  its  exercise,  known 
to  us,  the  Popes  struck  a  blow  at  tyranny,  and  one,  at  the  same  time,  for 
the  security  and  liberty  of  an  oppressed  people.  Instead  of  blaming, 
we  should  rather  applaud  them,  for  thus  keeping  alive,  amidst  political 
darkness  and  confusion,  that  spark  of  popular  liberty,  which  was  destined, 
a  little  later,  to  illumine  the  political  horizon  of  Europe.  That  the  friends 
of  European  monarchs  should  object  to  this  papal  claim,  we  can  readily 
understand,  because  its  exercise  was  necessarily  directed  against  their 
tyranny;  but  we  cannot  so  easily  explain, the  opposition  to  it  manifested 
by  our  modern  advocates  of  free  principles.  Yet  the  monarchists  of 
Europe,  along  with  Mr.  Pitt,  have  long  since  been  fully  satisfied  on  this 
point;  whereas  our  shrewder  republicans  have  just  begun  to  open  their 
eyes  to  the  awful  danger  to  our  freedom  growing  out  of  a  claim,  no 
longer  advanced  even  by  tlie  Popes  themselves  ! 

Having  in  the  following  pages  devoted  a  special  Essay  to  the  examina¬ 
tion  of  the  historical  facts  connected  with  the  first  exercise  of  the  deposing 
power  by  a  Roman  Pontiff',  we  must  refer  our  readers  to  it  for  full  details 
on  the  subject.^  Suffice  it  to  say  here,  that  the  circumstances  under  which 
this  extraordinary  power  was  first  claimed  having  long  since  ceased,  the 

1  Dubias  contra  nos  in  vulgns  voces  spargunt,  libros  qui  calumniantur  sanctissirnam  nostram 

religion-em  onini  nisu  apuil  nules  ignarosque  divulgant ;  servos  suos  Catholicos  haeresum  suarutu 
Tcneno  ut  inficiant  niliil  intactuni  relinquunt  ;  patreniqoe  suum  qui  ab  initio  mendax  fuit  iinitantes, 
nos  Catholicos  coricives  suos,  quamvis  patres  nostri  eanguinein  suum  tanquam  aquam  profuderint 
pro  vindicaiione  libertatis  contra  oppressorem  acatholicum,  gubernio  suspectos  obnoxiosque  reddere 
utpote,  ut  falso  asserunt,  sub  alieni  principis,  Contiflcis  sc  Romani  ditioue  politica  et  civili  ia 
servituiem  redactos,  ideoque  reipublicae  infidos.”  Concilia  BaUimor..  p.  223  ■ 

2  See  .‘Article  VllI,  Gregory  Yll.  and  his  Age— the  Deposing  Power,  P.  152  seqq. 


xlvi 


INTRODUCTORY  ADDRESS. 


Popes  liave,  for  nearly  three  centuries,  virtually  abandoned  the  claim,  by 
making'  no  attempt  at  its  exercise. 

•With  a  view  to  show  that  the  influence  of  the  Catholic  Church  tends 
to  debase  its  members,  our  adversaries  direct  attention  to  the  material 
condition  of  those  countries  which  have  continued  faithful  to  the  ancient 
religion,  and  upon  which  the  light  of  the  reformation  has  never  dawned. 
These,  they  say,  are  very  far  inferior  to  the  neighboring  Protestant 
communities  in  thrift,  in  literature,  in  morals,  in  liberty,  and  especially 
in  material  and  social  improvement ;  and  this  inferiority  they  trace  to  the 
difference  of  religious  influence.  We  answer,  by  denying  both  the  fact 
as  stated,  and  the  inference  thence  drawn.  Abundant  evidence  can  be 
•  alleged  to  show,  that,  if  in  some  respects  Protestant  are  superior  to 
Catholic  nations,  in  others  the  latter  far  surpass  the  former ;  and  that,  in 
both  cases,  a  difference  of  religious  principles  has  much  less  to  do  with 
the  matter  than  is  commonly  believed  by  those  opposed  to  Catholicity. 
As,  however,  we  devote  six  articles  in  the  following  collection  to  a 
somewhat  detailed  comparison  of  the  two  classes  of  countries  in  question, 
we  will  be  excused  from  entering  at  present  into  the  investigation  ; 
content  with  referring  those  who  may  be  curious  to  examine  the  evidence, 
as  furnished  even  by  impartial  Protestant  writers,  to  those  papers.* 

To  those,  again,  who  are  in  the  habit  of  pointing,  with  a  sneer,  to  the 
comparatively  degraded  condition  of  "Mexico  and  South  America,  as  a 

natural  consequence  of  the  Catholic  religion  there  professed,  we  would 

* 

beg  to  observe,  that  the  masses  of  the  population  in  Spanish  and  Portu¬ 
guese  America  are  either  of  pure  Indian  descent,  or  of  mixed  races  ;  and 
that  consequently,  it  is  manifestly  unreasonable  to  expect  them  to  have 
attained  to  the  same  elevated  social  level  as  ourselves,  who  belong  to  the 
much  boasted  and  loudly  boasting  Anglo-Saxon  stock  !  ^  As  well  might 
we  expect  to  find  our  own  high  degree  of  civilization  in  the  descendants 
of  our  North  American  Indians  !  There  is  this  important  difference 
between  our  policy  and  that  of  our  Catholic  neighbors,  in  regard  to  the 
treatment  of  the  aboriginal  inhabitants  of  this  continent;  that,  whereas  we 
have  exterminated  them  or  driven  them  out  into  the  wilderness,  they,  on 
the  contrary,  have  ^settled  down  in  their  midst,  intermarried  with  them, 
taught  them  Christianity,  and  thus  sought  to  raise  them  up  in  the  social 
scale,  even  at  the  expense  of  lowering  themselves.  While  they  have 
met  the  aborigines  half-way,  and  have  been  content  to  occupy  with  them 

1  Entitled  —  Catholic  and  Protestant  Countries  —  P.  454,  seqq.  In  these  articles  our  reasoning 
and  illustrations  are  based  chiefly  on  Protestant  testimony. 

2  Not  unmixed,  however ;  for  we  have  a  strong  iufution  of  the  Celtic  blood- 


INTAODUCTORY  ADDRESS. 


xlvii 


a  middle  ground  between  a  liigh  and  a  low  level  of  civilization,  we, 
wrapped  up  in  our  inborn  complacency,  and  vaunting  our  high  social 
position  as  the  necessary  result  of  our  “  Anglo-Saxon  blood,’’  have 
looked  with  contempt  upon  the  poor  savages  whom  our  fathers  found  in 
the  country,  —  miicli  as  the  proud  Pharisee  looked  down  upon  the  poor 
publican, —  have  disdained  all  sympathy  for,  or  alliance  with  them,  and 
have  caused  them  to  melt  away  before  our  advancing  and  exclusive 
civilization,  as  the  snow  melts  away  before  the  solar  rays  !  The  com¬ 
parison  between  us  and  our  Catliolic  neighbors  may  excite  our  compla¬ 
cency,  and  flatter  our  pride  ;  it  says  but  little  for  our  humanity,  and  less 
still*  for  our  religious  zeal  or  Christian  charity.  Our  Protestant  fellow 
citizens  would  do  well  never  to  vaunt  their  superiority  over  their  Mexican 
and  South  American  brethren  ! '  American  Catholics,  on  the  contrary, 
have  reason  to  be  proud  of  the  Catholic  colonists  wlio  explored  and 
peopled  our  continent.^ 

To  awaken  suspicion  against  the  Catholic  priesthood,  the  public  prints 
have  long  been  circulating  among  tlie  people  the  extraordinary  assertion, 
that  Lafayette  warned  American  patriots  against  priestly  influence,  in  the 
followino-  lano-iiau'e:  “If  ever  the  liberty  of  the  United  States  is  destroyed, 
it  will  be  by  Romish  priests.”  d'he  fact  of  such  a  declaration  coming 
from  one  who  was  a  Catholic  himself,  if  he  Avas  anytliing,  bears  the  shimp 
of  very  great  intrinsic  improbability,  to  say  the  least,  on  its  face;  yet  it 
passed  current  for  truth,  and  was,  nve  think,  generally  believed  by  the 
masses,  who  are  prepared  to  devour  any  absuidity,  provided  it  militate 
against  Catholics.  Now,  what  will  the  impartial  public  think,  should  it 
be  ascerUained,  that  this  charge,  like  most  others  wliich  have  been  lately 
circulated  in  this  country  to  our  disadvantage,  is  not  only  utterly 
groundless,  but  is  directly  the  reverse  of  truth  ?  That  such  is  the  case 
clearly  appears  from  the  fact,  that  about  the  time  when  Lafayette  is  re¬ 
ported  to  have  used  the  expression,  he  said  what  is,  in  its  import,  precisely 
the  contrary,  in  a  speech  made  by  him  in  the  French  Chambers  on  the  9th 
of  April,  1832.®  The  subject  in  debate  was  the  expulsion  from  France 
of  certain  foreign  refugees,  including  some  Irish  monks  who  were  sojourn¬ 
ing  with  the  French  Trappists  at  the  famous  Monastery  of  Melleray.  The 
French  patriot,  true  to  his  principles  in  favor  of  civil  and  religious  lib¬ 
erty,  earnestly  opposed  the  bill,  and  in  the  course  of  his  remarks  employed 
the  following  strong  language  : 

1  We  treat  this  subject  in  full  in  our  review  of  Webster’s  Bunker  Hill  Speech;  p.  333,  seqq. 

2  For  more  on  the  subject,  see  the  two  papers  reviewing  Prescott’s  Conquest  of  Mexico,  p,  350, 
seqq.,  and  the  three  articles  on  Early  Catholic  Missions  in  the  North-West,  p.  298,  seqq. 

3  Found  in  the  “  Memoires,  Correspondence,”  &c.,  of  Lafayette,  published  by  his  favorite  son  George 
Washington  Lafayette,  in  six  vols.  8vo. 


INTRODUCTORY  ADDRESS. 


xlviii 

“I  know  well  that  in  the  Report  they  have  spoken  of  the  expulsion  of 
some  Eno-lishmen  who  had  entered  among  the  Trappists  at  Melleray,  as  a 
measure  "of  good  and  wise  administration.  Such  measures,  gentlemen, 
are  not  among  those  which  will  merit  my  eulogy.  Mistake  not  rigor  for 
Btreno-th,  nor  despotism  for  power;  then  you  will  not  ha\re  need  of  all 
these  precautions,  and  the  Trappists  of  Melleray  will  not  be  more  dan¬ 
gerous  for  you,  THAN  ARE  THE  JESUITS  OF  GEORGETOWN  TO  THE 

United  States.” 

If  the  Jesuits  of  Georgetown  —  their  head-quarters  in  this  country 
were  not  by  him  deemed  dangerous  to  the  United  States,  a  fortiori,  ac¬ 
cording  to  the  view  of  Protestants,  the  other  Catholic  Clergy  could  not 
be  so  Considered  either  by  them,  or  by  Lafayette.  We  will  treat  of  this 

more  fully  hereafter.^ 

But  we  are  further  told,  that  Catholics  in  this  country  stand  aloof  from 
their  Protestant  fellow-citizens,  and  form  a  virtually  separate  society, 
having  neither  feelings  nor  interests  in  common  with  others;  and  that 
they  cast  their  vote  in  a  body  for  a  particular  political  party.  Let  us 

briefly  examine  these  heads  of  accusation. 

1.  If  the  charge  of  our  forming  a  separate  community,  with  separate 
feelings  and  interests,  refer  to  our  religious  organization  and  principles, 
we  must  plead  guilty;  it  is  surely  not  our  fault,  but  our  privilege,  to  differ 
on  religious  matters  with  such  of  our  fellow-citizens  as  belong  either  to 
no  relio-ious  communion  whatever,  or  are  members  of  the  various  conflict- 
ing  sects  which  exist  among  us.  We  cheerfully  allow  to  them  the  right 
of  thinking  and  acting  for  themselves  in  matters  of  religion  without 
molestation,  and  they  should  surely  grant  us  the  same  freedom:  —  Hane 
veniam  petimus,  damusque  vicissim.  This  privilege  should  be  the  more 
cheerfully  accorded  to  us,  as  we  propose  no  innovation,  but  merely  claim 
the  ri'dit  of  walking,  as  our  forefathers,  as  well  as  the  ancestors  of  our 
accusers  themselves  walked,  and  went  to  heaven,  for  fifteen  hundied 
years,  before  the  world  was  blessed  or  cursed  with  this  Babel-like  confu¬ 
sion  of  tongues  in  the  matter  of  religion. 

If  the  accusation  be  meant  to  imply,  that  we  are  a  separate  civil 
community,  and  that,  as  citizens,  we  have  feelings  and  interests  difierent 
from  those  of  others,  we  repel  the  charge  as  an  injurious  slander.  Catholics 
cordially  participate  in  all  our  civic  anniversary  festivals  ;  they  pray  in 
their  churches  for  all  their  fellow  citizens,_and  for  the  permanent  prosperity 
of  this  free  government ;  they  nobly  fight  the  battles  of  the  country,  and 
they  are  as  willing  to  shed  their  blood  in  its’  defense  or  for  its  honor,  as 
any  of  their  brethren.  In  a  word,  they  yield  to  none  in  patriotism  and 
valor.  About  one-half  of  our  regular  army  —  if  not  even  a  larger 

1  See  Article  entitled,  Lafayette  and  Professor  Morse,  p.  635,  seqq. 

2  The  beautiful  prayer,  for  the  “  Ruling  Powers,”  composed  by  Archbishop  Carroll,  is  frequentl/ 
read  in  our  churches. 


INTRODUCTORY  ADDRESS.  xlix 

proportion  —  is  composed  of  Roman  Catholic  soldiers  ;  a  large  number 
of  the  sailors  and  marines,  attached  to  our  young  but  vigorous  navy, 
are  also  Catholics;  g^nd  our  chief  officers  in  both  arms  of  the  service  have 
often  praised  their  fidelity  to  our  flag,  and  their  unfaltering  courao-e  in  the 
hour  of  danger.  In  every  battle-field  of  our  country, —  in  the  two  wars 
against  ProtestarU  England,  as  well  as  in  the  late  war  against  Qatholic 
Mexico,  Catholics  have  freely  bled,  by  the  side  of  their  Protestant 
fellow  citizens,  for  the  honor  and  triumph  of  our  country. 

After  the  death  of  General  Washington,  bishop  Carroll  pronounced  a 
splendid  eulogy  on  his  character,  in  the  cathedral  of  Baltimore  ;  ‘  and 
after  the  battle  of  New  Orleans,  General  Jackson  was  received  in  triumph 
in  the  Catholic  cathedral,  the  lauiel  garland  of  victory,  woven  by  Catholic 
hands,  was  placed  on  his  brow  by  a  Catholic  priest ;  and  the  noble  hero 
might  be  seen  weeping  with  joyful  emotion,  as  he  listened  and  responded 
to  the  eloquent  and  patriotic  address  delivered  on  the  occasion  by  the 
Rev.  M.  Dubourg.  '  In  a  beautiful  addiess  delivered  in  Washington  by 
Mr.  Livingston,  on  the  anniversary  of  the  battle  of  New  Orleans,  the 
distinguished  orator  feelingly  *  alluded  to  the  pavement  of  the  church 
being  worn  by  the  holy  knees  of  the  Ursuline  nuns,  praying  fervently 
that  victory  might  perch  on  the  American  banner,  and  drawing  from  the 
feast  of  the  day —  that  of  St,  Victoria  —  an  omen  of  success!  We 
repeat  it,  the  charge,  understood  in  this  sense,  is  a  base  calumnv. 

2.  But  we  are  not  friendly  to  the  common  schools.  Our  answer  is 
at  hand.  Let  the  Protestant  majority,  in  this  free  country,  make  those 
schools  such  as  not' to  wound  the  religious  feelings,  nor  endanger  the 
religious  faith  of  our  children,  and  then 'may  they,  with  some  show  of 
reason,  taunt  us  with  not  cheerfully  uniting  in  patronizing  them.  Let 
them  remove  from  them  all  sectarian  books,  all  sectarian  influences,  all 
teachers  who  abuse  their  position  for  purposes  of  proselytism  ;  let  them 
not  force  upon  our  children  the  reading  of  a  version  of  the  Bible,  which, 
in  common  with  four-fifths  of  Christendom,  we  consider  neither  a  genuine 
nor  a  complete  rendering  of  the  divine  word  —  and  then  they  will  make 
it  not  only  our  interest,  but  our  pleasure  to  unite  with  them  in  supporting 
the  common  s3hools.  It  will  be  our  interest ;  for,  in  common  with  our 
fellow  citizens,  we  pay  our  taxes  for  the  erection  and  maintenance  of 

1  This  solid  and  noble  oration  is  published  in  full  in  the  “  Biographical  Sketch  of  Archbishop 
Carroll,”  above  quoted,  158,  seqq.  The  panegyric,  by  one  who  knew  so  well  the  Father  of  his 
country,  prcduced  i  profound  sensation  at  the  time  it  was  delivered. 

2  And  with  which  a  large  and  influential  portion  of  the  Protestant  community  in  this  country  i» 
so  far  dissatisfied,  as  to  have  taken  steps  already  for  issuing  a  new  and  different  version  more 
*•  ■'iiformable  to  their  own  views. 

E 


4 


1 


INTRODUCTORY  ADDRESS. 


those  schools  ;  and  if  we  do  not  patronize  them,  we  liave  to  incur  the 
enormous  additional  expense  of  erecting  separate  schools  for  our  own 
children,  and  are  thus  double -taxed  for  educational  purposes.  The 
motive  which  would  prompt  us  to  make  so  great  a  sacrifice  must  be 
indeed  a  very  strong  one  ;  and  it  is  really  we  who  have  the  best  right  to 
complain,  not  the  Protestant  majority  which  enforces  such  a  hardship 
upon  us.  If  we  could  conscientiously  do  it,  we  have  every  possible 
motive  to  patronize  the  common  schools;  but  we  hold,  that  is  is  better 
far  to  suffer  every  earthly  loss,  than  to  jeopardize  our  faith,  or  that  of 
our  children.  Life  is  short,  eternity  never  ending  ;  and  “  what  doth  it 
profit  a  man,  if  he  gain  the  whole  world,  and  lose  his  own  soul  ?  ”  ' 

In  countries  much  less  free  than  ours,  the  common  school  system 
is  so  organized,  that  Catholics  and  Protestants  have  separate  schools. 
Austria,  with  all  her  alleged  tyranny,  and  with  her  triumphant  Catholic 
majority  of  population,  freely  grants  separate  schools,  supported  out  of 
the  common  fund,  to  the  Protestant  minority.^  England,  with  all  her 
hereditary  hatred  of  Catholicity,  permits  the  Catholics  to  have  their  own 
separate  schools ;  and  this  is  not  found  to  conflict  in  practice  with  her 
common  school  system.  Lower  Canada,  with  its  immense  Catholic 
majority,  freely  concedes  the  privilege  of  separate  schools  to  the  small 
Protestant  minority ;  and  every  one  who  reads  the  public  prints  must  be 
familiar  with  the  controversy,  which  is  now  carried  on  in  Canada,  and 
even  in  the  Canadian  parliament,  on  the  subject  of  having  this  same 
equitable  provision  extended,  in  all  its  privileges,  to  the  Catholic  minority  of 
Upper  Canada.  Strange,  that  Catholics,  when  in  power,  should  be  so  liberal 
in  granting  a  privilege,  which  a  Protestant  majority  is  so  slow  to  concede!* 
Why  should  the  freest  country  on  the  face  of  the  earth  form  an  excep¬ 
tion,  and  be  in  fact  the  most  exacting  and  tyrannical  of  all,  in  this  matter 
of  education  ?  Can  it  be,  that  the  immense  Protestant  majority  in  this 
country  is  apprehensive  of  the  influence,  which,  in  the  case  of  this  equi-r 
table  provision  being  adopted,  would  be  exercised  by  the  small  Catholic 
minority  ?  Or  are  they  afraid  of  entering  the  lists  of  free  competition  with 
'  their  Catholic  fellow-citizens  ?  While  all  other  pursuits  are  left  open  to 
honest  emulation,  and  the  rivalry  does  good  to  all,  why  should  education 
alone  be  trammeled,  by  being  made  a  state  monopoly  ? 

1  St.  Matthew  xvi. 

2  See  Article  II.  on  Catholic  and  Protestant  Countries,  for  the  Protestant  authority  sustaining 
this  assertion.  Infra.  P.  48o,seqq.  We  believe  that  this  is  also,  at  Jeast  substantially,  the  case  in 
Catholic  Ilavaria,  as  well  as  in  Catholic  France  and  Belgium  ;  at  any  rate  we  hear  of  no  complaints 
made  by  Protestants  on  the  subject,  in  regard  to  these  or  other  Catholic  countries,  where  Protestants 
exist  as  a  resident  body.  See  also  a  special  paper  on  Common  Schools ;  infra,  P.  652,  et  seqq. 

3  See  late  Canadian  papers, 


INTRODUCTORY  ADDRESS. 


)i 


We  are  persuaded,  that  the  provision  for  separate  schools  would  greatly 
promote  the  permanency  and  prosperity  of  the  common  school  system 
itself.  It  would  destroy  an  odious  restriction  on  parental  rights,  it  would 
awaken  a  new  energy  in  the  cause  of  education,  it  would  open  new  fields 
for  generous  rivalry ;  and,  above  all,  it  would  render  education  much 
cheaper,  and  thereby  lighten  that  heavy  burden  of  taxation  which  is  now 
weighing  us  down.  It  is  a  generally  conceded  fact,  that  Catholics  can 
educate  more  cheaply  than  Protestants ;  and  this  may  be  one  reason  why 
the  latter  are  not  willing  to  hazard  a  free  competition  with  the  former. 
Grant  separate  schools,  and  our  word  for  it,  you  will  not  have  to  pay  much 
more  than  half  the  taxes  you  have  been  in  the  habit  of  disbursing  for 
educational  purposes.  While  we  cheerfully  submit  to  be  guided  by  the 
principle  of  taxing  the  rich  in  order  to  educate  the  poor,  —  since  under  our 
present  circumstances,  it  seems  to  be  the  only  practicable  means  for  effect¬ 
ing  an  object  so  desirable, — we  naturally  object,  in  common  with  all 
impartial  and  sensible  men,  to  any  excessive  or  unnecessary  taxation.*  . 

In  Catholic  times,  no  taxation  whatever  was  necessary  for  educational 
purposes,  especially  for  the  education  of  the  poor.  Under  the  influence 
of  Catholic  charity  and  zeal  for  education,  colleges  and  schools  sprang 
up  spontaneously  in  every  part  of  Europe.  These  schools  were  free,  in 
every  sense  of  the  word  ;  no  one  was  taxed  to  erect  Ihem,  no  one  had  to 
pay  for  entering  them.’  The  first  college,  the  first  schools,  and  the  first 
hospital,  ever  established  on  the  North  American  continent,  were  erected 
by  Catliolics.’  In  all  countries  and  in  all  ages.  Catholics,  and  par¬ 
ticularly  the  Catholic  clergy,  have  been  foremost  in  advancing  the  cause 
of  popular  education.^ 

It  would  be  a  subject  of  very  useful  inquiry,  whether  our  common 
school  system,  as  at  present  managed,  be  really  conducive  to  a  high 
tone  of  refinement,  and  to  the  development  of  sound  morals,  in  the  youth 
educated  under  its  auspices.  It  is  a  Christian  principle,  of  pretty  general 
acceptance,  that  human  nature  is  corrupt  and  more  prone  to  evil  than  to 
good ;  and  that  consequently  the  religion  of  Christ  is  indispensably 
necessary  for  healing  its  evil  tendency  and  causing  it  to  walk  in  the  path 
of  virtue.  The  theory,  which  makes  morality  practicable,  or  even 

1  It  is  generally  known,  that  what  is  undertaken  and  executed  by  the  state  usually  costs  much 
more  money  than  what  is  done  by  indiTiduals:;  and  the  same  may  be  said  of  works  carried  on  by 
corporations. 

2  See,  for  details,  the  Article  on  Schools  and  Universities  in  the  “  Dark  ”  Ages,  P.  113,  seqq. 

3  See  the  Articles  on  Catholic  Missions  in  the  North  West ;  First  Paper,  P.  298,  seqq.  Also  the 
papers  on  the  Conquest  of  Mexico  :  sup.  cit. 

4  See  the  Article  —  Literature  and  the  Catholic  Clergy,  P.  96.  Read  also  the  Lecture  oa  Literature 
and  the  Arts  in  the  .Middle  Ages ;  P.  77,  seqq. 


Hi 


INTRODUCTORY^  ADDRESS.. 


possible,  witliout  religion,  is  evidently  more  Pagan  than  Christian.  If 
this  be  so,  how  can  the  children-  educated  in  our  common  schools  be 
properly  trained  to  sound  morality,  without  a  course  of  religious  instruction, 
which  the  system  excludes  ?  To  say,  that  sufficient  religious  knowledge 
for  the  purpose  may  be  imparted,  without  what  is  called  Sectarian 
teaching,  seems  to  us  wholly  preposterous.  To  be  adequate,  the  religious 
instruction  should  be  detailed  and  practical,  not  general,  vague,  and 
theoretical;  but  the  latter  only  can  be  compatible  with  our  present  school 
system,  while  the  former  could  scarcely  be  carried  out  without  trenching 
on  forbidden  ground.  But  let  us  look  at  the  practical  influence  of  the 
system,  as  exhibited  in  the  general  moral  conduct  of  the  youth  educated 
in  our  common  schools.  Do  these,  in  general,  show,  by  their  moral 
deportment^  that  they  have  been  pfoperly  trained  ?  Have  they  befen 
taught  politeness,  respect  for  age,  obedience  to  parents,  morality  in 
thought,  word,  and  deed  ?  We  fear  not.  Our  youth  are  growing  more 
and  more  licentious  and  demoralized,  with  each  succeeding  generation ; 
our  boys  particularly  become  men  before  they  are  half  grown ;  they  have 
learned  all  else  better,  than  the  art  of  governing  their  passions.  The 
late  fearful  increase  of  crime,  especially  in  our  cities  and  towns,  is  a  sad 
proof  of  this  increasing  demoralization.  To  what  an  abyss  of  vice  are 
we  hastening !  There  must  be  something  sadly  wrong  somewhere. 

3.  But  Catholics,  especially  those  of  foreign  birth,  vote  together,  and 
vote  for  a  particular  polijbical  party  :  the  liberties  of  our  country  are 
therefore  endangered  from  this  constantly  augmenting  foreign  influence. 
This  charge  is  groundless,  both  in  its  facts  and  in  its  inferences.  In  the 
first  place,  our  native  born  Catholics  have  been  heretofore  divided,  almost 
equally,  between  the  two  leading  political  parties  of  the  country ;  in  the 
second  place,  though  the  large  majority  of  the  Catholics  of  foreign  birth 
have  been  in  the  habit  of  voting  with  the  democrats,  yet  they  have  been 
far  from  unanimous  on  the  subject ;  in  the  third  place,  the  number  of 
Catholics  in  this  country  is  now,  and  is  likely  to  continue  to  be,  much  too 
insignificant  to  rule  the  country  in  one  way  or  another,  either  for  good  or 
for  evil. 

Tlie  followinof  candid  and  sensible  remarks  from  the  Boston  Post,  a 
political  print  of  some  standing,  contains  so  much  sound  reasoning  on 
this  subject,  based  upon  facts  tending  to  show  the  glaring  absurdity  of 
the  charge  that  “  foreigners  are  taking  the  country,^’  that  we  will  be 
pardoned  for  republishing  them  entire  : 

“  It  is  said  that  we  shall  be  overrun  with  foreigners ;  that  they  will 
rise  upon  native  citizens  and  overpower  them  ;  that  Catholicism  will  prevail 


INTRODUCTORY  ADDRESS. 


liii 


and  deprive  America  of  itjs  liberties.  These  assertions  liave  bc€n  reiterated 
so  of en  tliat  thousands  really  fear  such  results.  .Take  the  formei 
apprehension,  and  let  facts,  so  far  as  they  bear  on  the  question  of 
physical  force,  say  how  groundless  that  fear  is.  In  the  first  place,  for 
the  whole  time  we  have  been  a  nation,  it  is  a  fact  that  no  such  attempt 
has  been  made;  and  if  it  ever  should  be  made,  such  .s  the  admirable 
working  of  our  institutions,  that  the  rule  of  a  mob  is  utterly  out  of  the 
question.  Permanent  success,  even  where  the  foreign  population  out¬ 
weighs  the  native  population,  is  an  impossibility  ;  for  the  whole  force  of 
the  countiy  would  at  once  be  invoked  to  suppress  such  a  rule.  In  the 
next  place,  consider  the  utter  folly,  want  of  foresight,  and  suicidal 
policy  of  such  an  attempt,  if  it  should  ever  be  made.  Of  our  now  thirty 
millions  of  population  one  million'  only  are  from  Ireland  ;  of  the  thirty- 
eifjht  thousand  churches  that  the  census  of  1850  shows  as  beinor  in  the 
country,  the  Catholic  are  set  down  at  one  thousand  two  hundred  and 
twenty-one  ;  and  of  the  eighty-seven  millions  of  church  property,  the 
Catholics  have  nine  millions.  Now,  cannot  this  immense  preponderance 
of  Protestantism  and  of  Americanism  take  care  of  itself?  Is  it  not  perfectly 
preposterous  to  suppose  for  a  moment  that  the  Irish  Catholics  will  ever 
attempt  to  ‘rise,’  as  the  phrase  is,  with  such  an  enormous  disparity 
against  them  ?  It  is  due,  it  is  but  bare  justice,  to  our  foreign  population 
to  sny,  that  not  only  has  there  been  no  attempt  at  rising,  but  their  conduct 
—  save  only  in  cases  when  heated  by  liquor  or  otherwise  excited  —  has 
been  almost  invariably  that  of  peaceable  citizens,  submissive  to  the  laws. 
They  have  a  right  to  have  such  a  certificate,  as  to  the  past,  to  stand  in  their 
favor ;  and  when  we  consider  their  position  among  us,  we  believe  there  is 
no  more  danger  of  their  ‘  rising  ’  than  there  is  of  the  falling  of  the  stars.” 

Much  has  been  said  and  written  of  late  years  about  the  “  foreign  vote.” 
Both  parties,  on  the  eve  of  elections,  have  been  in  the  habit  of  courting 
‘•foreigners;”  who  have  thus,  against  their  own  choice  and  will,  been 
singled  out  from  the  rest  of  the  community,  and  placed  in  a  false  and 
odious  position,  by  political  demagogues  for  their  own  vile  purposes. 
That  they  have  been  thus  severed  from  their  fellow  eitizens,  and  insulted 
with  the  compliment  of  their  influence  as  a  separate  body,  has  not  been 
so  miudi  their  fault,  as  it  has  been  their  misfortune.  From  the  successful 
party  the}'-  have  generally  received,  —  with  a  few  honorable  exeeptions — • 
little  but  coldness  a/ler  the  election ;  while  from  the  party  defeated,  they 
have  invariably  received  nothing  but  abuse  and  calumny.  So  they  have 
been,  wiihout  their  own  agency,  placed  between  two  fires,  and  have  been 
caressed  and  outraged  by  turns.  Any  appeal  made  to  them  by  politicians, 
in  their  character  of  religionists  or  foreigners,  and  not  in  that  of  American 
citizens,  is  manifestly  an  insult,  whether  so  intended  or  not;  and  we  trust 
that  Catholics  will  always  view  such  appeals  in  this  light.  Whenever  it 
is  question  of  state  policy,  they  can  have  no  interests  different  from 
those  of  their  fellow  citizens.  Th.e  laws  which  will  be  good  for  the  latter, 
will  be  good  for  them ;  at  least  they  can  live  under  any  system  of  equal 

1  The  number  is  probably  greater;  but  this  does  not  affect  the  argument. 

E2 


llv 


INTRODUCTORY  ADDRESS. 


legislation  wliijli  will  suit  the  Protestant  majority,  with  whom  they 
cheerfully  share  all  the  burdens  of  the  country. 

The  Catholic  bishops  and  clergy  of  the  country  have  discreetly  stood 
aloof,  and  wisely  abstained  from  exercising  any  influence  in  the  exciting 
political  contests  which  have  successively  arisen.  We  ourselves,  thougli 
to  the  manor  born,  have  never  even  voted  on  a  political  question  ;  and 
we  believe  that  most  of  our  brother  prelates  and  clergy  have  adopted  the 
same  prudent  precaution  ;  not  surely  through  any  want  of  interest  in  the 
count/y,  but  chiefly  with  a  view  to  remove  from  the  enemies  of  our 
Church  the  slightest  pretext  for  slandering  our  religious  character.  The 
only  influence,  we  have  sought  to  bring  to  bear  on  the  members  of  our 
communion,  has  been  invariably  in  the  interests  of  peace,  of.  order,  and 
of  charity  for  all  men,  even  for  our  most  bitter  enemies.  Whenever  we 
have  had  occasion  to  address  our  people  on  the  eve  of  elections,  we  liave 
counseled  them  to  avoid  all  violence,  to  beware  of  being  carried  away  by 
passion,  to  be  temperate,  to  respect  the  feelings  and  principles  of  their 
opponents  ;  and,  in  the  exercise  of  their  franchise  as  citizens,  to  vote 
conscientiously  for  the  men  and  measures  they  might  think  most  likely  to 
advance  the  real  and  permanent  interests  of  the  republic.  We  defy  any 
one  to  prove,  that  we  have  ever  attempted  to  exercise  any  other  influence 
than  this.  The  contrary  has  been  occasionally  asserted  by  unprincipled 
demagogues,  for  political  effect ;  but  the  accusation,  like  many  others  made 
in  the  heat  of  political  contests,  has  in  every  instance  turned  out  to  be  a 
grievous  slander ;  which  was  scarcely  believed  at  the  time,  even  by  those 
who  were  most  busy  in  giving  it  circulation. 

Never  since  the  foundation  of  the  republic  has  it  been  heard  of,  that 
the  Catholic  bishops  or  clergy  have  taken  an  active  part  in  conducting 
the  proceedings  of  political  conventions,  or  in  fomenting  political  excite¬ 
ment,  in  the  name  of  the  religion  of  peace  and  love.  They  are  not,  and 
never  have  been,  either  abolitionists  or  freesoilers,  ultraists  or  politico- 
religious  alarmists.  Nor  have  they  ever  ventured,  either  collectively  oi 
individually,  to  address  huge  remonstrances  to  congress,  thi-eatening 
vengeance  in  the  name  of  Almighty  God,  unless  certain  particular 
measures  were  passed  or  repealed  !  Never  have  they  been  heard 
brawling  in  the  public  streets  and  highways,  haranguing  in  violent 
language  the  already  excited  populace,  lashing  their  passions  into  fury, 
and  openly  exciting  them  to  deeds  of  mob  violence  and  bloodshed  ! 
Never  have  they  been  known  to  parade  the  Bible  in  noisy  political 
processions,  thus  prostituting  the  holy  book,  which  breathes  naught  bui 


INTRODUCTORY  ADDRESS. 


Iv 


peace  and  good  will  towards  all  men,  to  the  vile  piiiposes  of  politi(,-a] 
faction  and  sectarian  strife  !  Ministers  of  other  denominations  have  done, 
or  countenanced  all  these  things  ;  and  we  cheerfully  leave  to  them  all  the 
glory,  whether  religious  or  political,  which  they  can  possibly  derive  from 
such  a  line  of  conduct.* 

Catholics  of  foreign  birth  are  charged,  in  the  same  breath,  with  voting 
the  democratic  ticket,  and  with  being  the  secret  or  open  enemies  of 
republican  government !  Is  it  then  true,  that  a  man  cannot  be  a 
democrat,  without  being  a  traitor  to  his  country  ?  If  so,  then  have  ,the 
destinies  of  this  great  republic  been  ruled,  with  very  slight  intermission, 
for  nearly  thirty  years  by  an  organized  band-  of  traitors,  consisting  of  the 
vast  majority  of  our  population  !  Catholics  can  well  afford  to  be  traitors 
in  such  goodly  company.  We  are  no  politicians  ourselves,  and,  so  far 
as  we  have  had  any  political  leanings,they  have  heretofore  been  to  the 
policy  of  the  whigs ;  but,  in  common  with  every  man  of  sound  judgment 
and  liberal  mind,  we  reprobate  the  spirit,  which  would  thus  inconsistently 
and  absurdly  brand  the  advocates  of  different  principles  as  enemies  of  the 
country  and  of  all  liberty.  The  genius  of  our  noble  constitution  is  in 
favor  of  allowing  to  ev^ery  man  the  largest  liberty  of  opinion  in  matters  of 
state  policy,  without  his  thereby  incurring  the  risk  of  having  his  motives 
questioned  or  his  loj^alty  impeached.  If  any^charge  could  be  consistently 
made  or  sustained  against  this  large  portion  of  our  Catholic  population, 
it  would  be,  on  the  contrary,  tliat  they  have  been  generally  in  favor  of 
too  enlarged  a  libert)^  to  tally  with  the  views  of  those  who  profess  to 
belong  to  the  conservative  school  ;  but  to  charge  them  with  an  intention 
to  undermine  our  republic,  is  simply  an  absurdity,  as  glaring  as  it  is 
malicious. 

Those  who  are  loudest  in  their  denunciations  of  foreio-ners”  seem  to 

O 

forget  what  “foreigners’*  have  done  for  the  country.  They  have  filled 
our  army  and  navy  ;  they  have  fought  our  battles  ;  they  have  leveled  our 
forests,  peopled  our  vast  unoccupied  territory,  and  filled  our  cities  with 
operatives  and  mechanics ;  they  have  dug  our  canals,  built  our  turnpikes 
and  i-ailroads,  and  have  thus  promoted,  more  perhaps  than  any  other  class, 
the  improvement  of  the  country  and  the  development  of  its  vast  resources; 
in  a  word,  they  have,  in  every  way,  largely  contributed  towards  enhancing 

1  It  is  also  w«U  known  that,  particularly  during  the  late  elections,  Protesraut  ministers  took  an 
active  part  in  the  canvass.  In  several  instances,  they  were  even  candidates  for  office,  and  in 
some  cases  elected.  It  is  they,  and  not  the  Catholics,  who  liave  thus  attempted  to  mingle  religion 
with  politics  ;  and  if  ever  there  be  biouglit  about  a  union  of  Church  and  State  in  this  republic.it 
will  surely  not  be  accomplished  by  Catholics,  but  by  those  precisely  who  are  foremost  in  the  crusade 
ugtiinst  theml  Let  the  lovers  of  freedom  look  to  it  in  time!  The  Protestant  ministers  may,  in 
Cact,  be  said  to  he  at  the  head  of  the  abolition  party  iu  the  north. 

i 


(vi 


INTRODUCTORY  ADDRESS. 


the  wealth  and  increasing  the  prosperity  of  the  republic.  Do  they  deseivft 
nothing  but  bitter  denunciation  and  unsparing  invective  for  all  these 
services  ?  Are  they  to  be  branded  as  aliens  and  traitors,  for  having  thus 
eiiectually  labored  to  serve  their  adopted  country  ? 

But  they  are  foreigners  in  feeling  and  in  interest,  and  they  still  prefer 
their  own  nationality  to  ours.  We  answer  first,  that  if  this  their  alleged 
feeling  be  excessive,  and  if  it  tend  to  diminish  their  love  for  the  country 
of  their  adoption,  it  is  certainly  in  so  far  reprehensible  ;  but  where  is  the 
evidence  that  this  is  the  case  ?  Has  their  lingering  love  for  the  country 
of  their  birth,  —  with  its  glowing  memories  of  early  childhood  and  ripen- 
in(>-  manhood,  of  a  mother’s  care  and  a  sister’s  love,  —  interfered  in  aught 
with  their  new  class  of  duties  as  American  citizens  ?  Has  it  prevented 
their  sharing  cheerfully  in  the  burdens,  in  the  labors,  and  in  the  perils  of 
the  country  ?  We  believe  not.  Instead  of  their  being  unconcerned  and 
indifferent,  their  chief  fault,  in  the  eyes  of  their  enemies,  lies  precisely  in 
the  opposite,  — in  their  taking  too  much  interest  in  the  affairs  of  the 
republic.  We  answer,  in  the  second  place,  that  this  natural  feeling  of 
love  for  the  country  of  their  birth,  growing  as  it  does  out  of  that  cherished 
and  honorable  sentiment  which  we  denominate  patriotism,  will,  in  the  very 
nature  of  things,  gradually  diminish  under  the  influence  of  new  associa¬ 
tions,  until  it  will  finally  be  absorbed  into  the  one  homogeneous  nationality; 
and  thus  the  evil  —  if  it  be  an  evil  —  will  remedy  itself.  The  only  thing 
which  can  possibly  keep  it  alive  for  any  considerable  time,  would  be 
precisely  the  narrow  and  proscriptive  policy,  adopted  in  regard  to  citizens 
of  foreign  birth  by  the  Know  Nothings  and  their  sympathizers.  The 
endeavor  to  stifle  this  feeling  by  clamor  and  violence  will  but  increase  its 
intensity. 

We  answer  thirdly,  that  the  influence  of  Catholicity  tends  strongly 
to  break  down  all  barriers  of  separate  nationalities,  and  to  bring  about 
a  brotherhood  of  citizens,  in  which  the  love  of  our  common  country  and 
of  one  another  would  absorb  every  sectional  feeling.  Catholicity  is 
of  no  nation,  of  no  language,  of  no  people;  she  knows  no  geographicj*' 
bounds  ;  she  breaks  down  all  the  walls  of  separation  between  ra::v. 
race,  and  she  looks  alike  upon  every  people,  and  tribe,  and  caste.  Her  views 
are  as  enlarged  as  the  territory  which  she  inhabits  ;  and  this  is  as  wide  ^ 
die  world.  Jew  and  gentile,  Greek  and  barbarian;  Irish,  German,  Fieiicli, 
Eindish,  and  ximerican,  are  all  alike  to  her.  In  this  country,  to  which 
people  of  so  many  nations  have  flocked  for  shelter  against  the  evils  they 
endured  at  home,  we  have  a  striking  illustration  of  this  truly  Catholic 


I  N  T  R  0  D  U  C  T  0  K  Y  ADDRESS. 


Ivli 


spirit  of  the  Church.  Germans,  Irish,  French,  Italians,  Spaniards,  Poles, 
Hungarians,  Hollanders,  Belgians,  English,  Scotch,  and  Welch;  differing 
in  language,  in  national  customs,  in  prejudices,  —  in  every  thing  hunian, 
—  are  here  brought  together  in  the  same  Church,  professing  the  same 
faith,  and  worshiping  like  brothers  at  the  same  altars  !  The  evident  ten¬ 
dency  of  this  principle  is,  to  level  all  sectional  feelings  and  local  prejudices, 
by  enlarging  the  views  of  mankind,  and  thus  to  bring  about  harmony  in 
society,  based  upon  mutual  forbearance  and  charity.  And  in  fact,  so  ffir 
as  the  influence  of  our  Church  could  be  brought  to  bear  upon  the  anomalous 
condition  of  society  in  America,  it  has  been  exercised  for  securing  the 
desirable  result  of  causing  all  its  heterogeneous  elements  to  be  merged 
in  the  one  variegated,  but  homogeneous  nationality.  Protestantism  isolates 
and  divides;  Catholicity  brings  together  and  unites.  Such  have  been  the 
results  of  the  two  systems  in  times  past ;  such,  from  their  very  nature, 
must  be  their  influence  on  society  at  ail  times  and  in  all  places. 

The  character  of  the  foreign  immigration  into  this  country  has  been 
undergoing  a  considerable  change  within  the  last  few  years;  the  German 
element  now  strongly  predominates  over  the  Irish,  and  perhaps  the 
Protestant  and  infidel,  over  the  Catholic.  The  disastrous  issue  of  the 
revolutionary  movements  which  convulsed  all  Europe  in  1848-9,  has 
thrown  upon  our  shores  masses  of  foreign  political  refugees,  most  of 
whom  are  infidels  in  religion, and  red  republicans,  or  destructionists  of  all 
social  order,  in  politics.  The  greatest,  and,  in  fact,  the  only  real  danger 
to  the  permanency  of  our  republican  institutions,  is  to  be  apprehended 
from  this  fast  increasing  class  of  foreigners,  composed  in  general,  of 
men  of  desperate  character  and  fortune, — of  outlaws  from  society,  with 
the  brand  of  infidelity  upon  their  brow.  Against  the  anarchical  principles 
advocated  by  these  men  the  Catholic  Church  takes  open  ground  ;  and  she 
feels  honored  by  their  bitter  hostility.  It  could  not  be  otherwise.  Her 
principles  are  eminently  conservative  in  all  questions  of  religion  and  of 
civil  polity  ;  theirs  are  radical  and  destructive  in  both.  Theirs  is  the  old 
war  of  Satan  Against  Christ ;  of  the  sons  of  Belial  against  the  keepers  of 
the  law  ;  of  false  and  anti-social  against  true  and  rational  liberty  —  “  the 
liberty  of  the  glory  of  the  children  of  God.’* 

If  the  lately  organized  secret  political  association  warred  against  the 
pernicious  principles  maintained  by  such  foreigners  as  these,  we  would 
»  not  only  have  no  cause  to  complain,  but  we  would  rather  applaud  their 
patriotic  efforts  in  the  cause  of  true  freedom,  and  bid  them  God  speed.  But 
what  is  our  astonishment  to  find,  that  our  boasted  advocates  of  “American 


Iviii 


INTRODUCTORY  ADDRESS. 


principles/’  instead  of  opposing,  secretly  or  openly  sympathize  with  these 
sworn  enemie-s  of  all  religion  and  of  all  social  order  —  of  God  and  man  ; 
as  well  as  with  the  reckless  and  blood-stained  Irish  Orangemen  !  Say 
what  you  will,  their  efforts  are  directed  almost  solely  against  the  Catholic 
element  in  the  foreign  immigration,  and  chiefly  against  the  Irish  Catholics. 
Their  professions  are  belied  by  their  acts,  all  of  which  point  to  Catholicity, 
as  the  victim  whose  ruin  is  to  be  accomplished,  at  all  hazards,  in  this 
/ree  and  republican  country.  What  else  is  indicated  by  the  bloody  riots 
gotten  up  by  hired  street  brawlers  against  the  Irish  Catholics  ;  what  else 
bv  the  wrecking  and  burning  of  Catholic  churches  ?  If  the  true  policy 
of  the  (country  demands  a  revision  or  repeal  of  the  naturalization  laws,  then 
bring  about  this  result  by  fair,  consistent,  and  honorable  means;  set  about  it 
in  an  open  and  manly  manner,  as  men,  as  Americans,  as  Christians,  not 
as  cowards  fearing  the  light  of  day,  and  skulking  beneath  the  cover  of 
darkness.  If  a  new  policy  in  regard  to  foreign  immigrants  is  to  be  . 
adopted,  or  if  even  the  alien  and  sedition  laws  are  to  be  re-enacted,  let 
the  country  know  your  purpose  in  time,  that  all  the  true  lovers  of  freedom 
may  be  prepared  for  the  issue. 

But  the  Irish  immigrants  are  vicious  and  immoral.  That  a  portion  of 
them  have  their  faults,  —  grievous  and  glaring  faults,  —  we  do  not  deny  ; 
but  all  fair  and  impartial  men  will  admit,  that  the  charge  made  against 
them  as  a  body  is  atrociously  unjust.  They  have  their  faults,  which  are 
paraded  and  greatly  exaggerated  by  the  public  press  ;  but  they  have  also 
their  virtues,  which  are  studiously  kept  out  of  view.  They  have  their 
faults  ;  but  have  not  the  corresponding  classes  in  our  own  population  their 
vices  also,  as  great,  as,  if  not  greater  than  those  of  the  class  which  is  now 
singled  out  as  the  victims  of  a  virtuous  public  indignation  ?  *  They  have 
their  vices,  but  these  are  often  faults  of  the  head  more  than  of  the  heart; 
of  imprudence  and  thoughtlessness,  more  than  of  deliberate  design  and 
malice.  If  you  look  for  the  accomplished  forger,  the  cold-blooded 
midnight  assassin  or  murderer,  the  daring  burglar,  the  man  who  goes 
always  armed  with  the  destructive  bowie-knife  or  revolver,  ready  for 
any  deed  of  blood,  you  will,  in  general,  have  to  seek  elsewhere  thau 
among  the  class  of  Irish  immigrants,  whom  you  so  fiercely  denounce. 

The  Irishman’s  vices  are  generally  the  result  of  intemperance,  or  of 
the  sudden  heat  of  passion,  sometimes  aroused  by  outrages  upon  his 

1  Besides,  is  no  allowance  to  be  made  for  them,  in  consequence  of  that  grinding  oppression  with 
which  Protestant  England  has  crushed  them  for  centuries?  We  doubt  much  whether  an}'  other 
people  would  have  stood  up  so  well  under  a  tyranny  so  dreadful  and  so  long  ccntiuued.  See  tht 
Article  —  Ireland  and  the  Irish,  p.  506  —  sup.  cit. 


INTRODUCTORY  ADDRESS. 


hx 

country  or  religion  ;  he  is  easily  misled  by  evil  associates,  but  his  heart 
is  generally  in  the  right  place.  You  can  accomplish  everything  with  him 
by  mildness  and  persuasion ;  you  can  do  nothing  by  overbearing  harsh¬ 
ness  and  reckless  insult.  The  Irishman  has  no  concealment  in  his 
character  ;  what  he  is,  he  is  openly  and  before  the  whole  world  ;  and 
this  circumstance,  together  with  the  deadly  hatred  which  has  been  lately 
awakened  against  his  countrymen  in  this  land  of  boasted  freedom,  may 
aid  us  in  accounting  for  the  singular  fact,  that  so  many  Irish  are  arrested 
for  real  or  alleged  crimes,  whereas  so  many  of  our  natives,  equally  or 
more  guilty,  are  permitted  to  go  free  !  A  riot  occurs  in  one  of  our  cities  ; 
the  Irish  get  the  worst  of  it;  they  are  overpowered  by  superior  numbers, 
are  beaten  and  murdered  ;  and  in  the  end  it  turns  out,  that  all  those 
arrested  are  from  the  injured  and  outraged  party  themselves  !  The 
really  guilty  go  free,  the  comparatively  innocent  are  punished  by  the 
arm  of  the  law. 

Those  among  them  who  fall  into  crime  ha.ve  been  already,  in  most 
instances,  estranged  from  their  Church  by  the  influence  of  dangerous 
associations,  often  with  the  depraved  portion  of  our  own  native  population. 
They  go  not  to  the  Church  ;  they  hear  or  heed  not  the  voice  of  their 
pastors ;  they  do  not  approach  the  sacraments  ;  they  are  Catholics  only 
in  name,  if  even  they  retain  the  name.  Whose  fault  is  it,  that  they  are 
thus  estranged  and  corrupted  ?  Not  surely  the  fault  of  the  Church, 
which  seeks  to  reclaim  and  to  save  them.  How  can  the  pastors  of  the 
Chundi  be  held  responsible  for  the  misconduct  of  those  who  will  not  even 
hear  their  voice,  or  consent  to  be  brouo-ht  under  the  savino-  influence  of 
the  religion  which  they  inculcate  ?  Of  all  the  charges  which  have  been 
lately  made  against  the  Catholic  Church,  the  most  glaringly  unjust  is 
that,  which  ascribes  the  immorality  of  a  certain  class,  amongst  those  who 
may  still  call  themselves  Catholics,  to  the  disastrous  influence  which  she 
exercises  over  their  minds.  These  unfortunate  men  are  thus  seduced  into 
habits  of  crime  by  evil  influences  acting  entirely  outside  the  Church,  and 
then  their  crimes  are  laid  at  the  door  of  the  Church  itself,  which  they 
have  been  induced  practically  to  abandon  !  Was  there  ever  iniquity 
greater  than  this  ?  . 

The  Church  weeps,  like  a  tender  mother,  over  the  sins  of  her  children  ; 
she  employs  every  kind  and  tender  influence  to  win  them  back  to  virtue  ; 
she  goes  after  them  in  their  wanderings,  as  the  Good  Shepherd  after  the 
strayed  sheep  ;  she  has  no  word  of  reproach  or  railing  to  frighten  them 
farther  away  from  the  fold  ;  with  earnest  and  unfaltering  love,  she  seeks 


k 


INIROBUCTORY  .ADDRESS. 


to  reclaim  them  from  their  errors;  no  poverty,  no  misery  however  squalid 
or  loathsome,  no  disease  however  infectious  deters  her  from  persuing  her 
cherished  work  of  mercy  :  and  if  she  succeeds  in  her  mission,  her  heart 
overflows^  with  unspeakable  joy  and  gladness,  and  she  bears  them  back 
with  maternal  affection  to  her  sanctuary,  and  lays  them  tenderl)  and 
joyously  at  the  foot  of  her  altars,  as  noble  trophies  of  her  labor  of  love. 
Her  ministers  labor  day  and  night  for  the  spiritual  welfare  of  their  people  ; 
they  wear  out  their  health,  and  grow  prematurely  old  in  assiduous  toil 
among  the  poor  and  lowly ;  they  often  lay  down  their  lives  for  their 
flocks.  And  if  their  zeal  is  not  always  crowned  with  success,  if  scandals 
still  abound,  in  spite  of  their  exertions  to  promote  virtue,  the  unfortunate 
result  is  surely  not  owing  to  their  fault,  because  clearly  beyond  their 
control. 

The  Church  fails  not  at  all  times  earnestly  to  inculcate  on  her  children  the 
duty  of  being  good  citizens  of  this  republic,  and  of  sincerely  loving,  and 
praying  for  all  their  fellow-citizens,  even  those  who  hate  and  revile  them. 
She  often  addresses  them  in  language  similar  to  that,  which  was  lately 
employed  by  one  of  our  first  prelates  in  age,  learning,  piety, -and  station, — 
Dr.  Keiirick,  the  Archbishop  of  Baltimore,  —  the  first  episcopal  see  in  the 
country.  We  cannot  better  conclude  this  Address  than  with  an  extract 
from  his  recent  Pastoral  Letter;  and  we  are  quite  sure  that  every  bishop, 
every  priest,  and  every  layman  of  our  Church  in  this  country  will  cheer- 
fully  subscribe  to  every  sentiment  and  to  every  word  therein  contained ; 

“  We  take  this  occasion,  brethren,  to  recommend  to  your  most  earnest 
prayers  the  peace,  prosperity,  and  happiness  of  tliese  Umted  States,  and 
of  all  our  fellow-citizens.  It  is  not  our  province,  as  pastors  of  the  Church, 
to  meddle  with  political  interests:  but  it  is  our  duty  to  exhort  you  to  con¬ 
tinue  faithful  to  the  constitution  and  government  under  which  you  have 
the  happiness  to  live,  obedient  to  the  laws,  respectful  to  all  the  civil 
authorities,  and  to  prove  yourselves  by  your  conduct  peaceful  and  orderly 
citizens  Be  not  concerned  at  the  suspicions  cast  on  your  loyally  and 
patriotism,  and  the  eft'orts  made  to  proscribe  you,  and  check  the  progress 
of  our  holy  religion.  ‘Who  is  he  that  can  hurt  you,  if  you  be  zealous 
of  good  ?  But  if,  also,  you  suffer  any  thing  for  justice  sake,  blessed  are 
ye.  iVnd  be  not  afiaid  of  their  fear,  and  be  not  troubled.  But  sanctify 
the  Lord  Christ  in  your  hearts.’  Pursue,  then,  the  peaceful  path  of 
industry,  regardless  of  political  partizanship  ;  shun  the  use  of  intoxicating 
liquors  ;  avoid  secret  societies ;  practise  your  religion  ;  teach  it  to  your 
children ;  take  every  opportunity  to  perform  kind  offices  towards  your 
fellow-citizens,  whatever  wrongs  you  may  endure,  and  pray  that  God 
may  lead  all  to  the  knowledge  of  the  truth.  This  course  of  conduct  is  your 
best  defense  —  your  only  security,  whilst  it  will  vindicate  most  effectually 
the  h.onor  of  the  Church.  Keep  far  away  from  scenes  of  danger ;  from 
tumult  and  bloody  strife.  In  the  retirement  of  your  chambers,  and  at  the 
foot  of  the  altar,  pour  out  your  hearts  in  prayer,  that  God  may  turn  away 


INTRODUCTORY  ADDREvSS. 


lx 


His  anger  and  in  the  day  of  His  just  visitation  may  remember  mercy. 
Implore  Him  to  relieve  our  country  from  pestilence,  which  now  strews 
the  land  with  victims,  from  the  disorders  of  the  elements  which  spread 
terror  and  destruction, —  but,  above  all,  from  the  maddening  influence  of 
the  demon  of  civil  discord.  Ask  Him  to  continue  and  perpetuate  those 
free  institutions,  which  have  hitherto  united  in  social  brotherhood  and 
concord  the  millions  of  men  of  various  nations  and  creeds,  that,  from  the 
Atlantic  to  the  Pacific,  bask  in  the  sunshine  of  liberty.  Pray  that  to  all 
may  be  imparted  the  still  greater  blessings  of  faith  and  love,  that  we  may 
with  one  heart  and  mouth  glorify  God  and  fulfill  his  law,  in  order  to  our 
salvation.’* 


« 


r 


PART  I. 


HISTORICAL. 


A  V 


•  -I 


7 


J 


\ 


A 


'j.  A. 


f* ' .’ 


■'1 

"i  '  ■ 

.'  <■  .» 


i 


i  r.  ..I  ^  .1  •:.? 
J.  .f  f 


i  i  I 

f  M 


I 


% 


.‘Jl 


X 


\, 


i 


j 


‘ 


9 


Fi 


.  ^ 


*,1 

■'is 


'  ->4-: 


■  '  s*’ 
■ 


I 


» 4 

. 


4 


i 


•  / 


>■ 


-  % 


f 


/  . 


k 

■  wrf 

*1 

-V 


lX 


•i 


A 


I 


if 


•I. 


BtDitma,  ®ssn^s,  aib  ICtctaits. 


PART  I.-HISTORIOAL. 


I.  CHURCH  HISTORY.'' 

ARTICLE  1. - THE  EARLY  AGES. 

P&lma  and  Palmer  as  historians  — Rome  and  Oxford  —  Gratuitous  assertions  —  Promises  of  Christ 
in  favor  of  the  Church  —  Essential  and  Non-essential  doctrines  —  Bishop  Whittinghaun  — ■ 
Puseyism  —  Palmer’s  division  —  Purity  of  early  Church  —  The  Age  of  persecution  —  Donatists  — 
Striking  avowal  —  Peter  in  Rome  — The  “  Thunderiug  Legion  "  —Disciplina  arcawt  —  Testimonies 
of  Sts.  Ignatius  and  Justin  on  holy  Eucharist  —  tlases  of  Popes  Victor  arid  Stephen  —  The 
Primacy*— St.  Irenaeus  — The  Cross  of  Constantine  —  Early  heresies  —  Church  of  Rome  —  Story 
of  Liberius  and  of  Honorius  I.  —  Monastic  Life— Holy  Virginity  —  Nestorius  —  St,  Cyril  of 
Alexandria  —  St.  Patrick  —  Early  British  Churciies  —  Primitive  Irish  Chuiclies  —  St  Simeon 
Stylites  — “Rank  Popery”  —  Early  “abuses  and  corruptions Wisdom  of  the  Church  —  The 
Seventh  and  Eig-hth  General  Councils. 

We  notice  tosfether  the  ecclesiastical  histories  of  Professors  Palmer  and 
Palma,  not  on  account  of  the  similarity  in  name  of  the  two  distinguished 
authors,  but  for  other  obvious  reasons.  They  have  both  lately  given  to 
the  world  the  results  of  their  respective  labors  in  a  very  interesting 
department  of  human  inquiry.  Both,  though  in  very  different  ways, 
have  attempted  to  trace  the  various  phases  and  vicissitudes  which  mark 
the  history  of  the  Church  of  Christ.  Both  too  are  men  of  distinguished 
ability  and  learning. 

They  belong  to  two  different,  and  we  may  say  opposite  schools  ; — those 
of  Rome  and  Oxford ;  though  the  latter  not  long  since  manifested  some 
disposition  to  approximate  to  the  former.  And  they  are  tolerably  good 
representatives  of  these  two  schools.  The  Roman  Palma,  as  a  historian, 
has  a  character  distinct  in  its  outline  and  clearly  marked  in  all  its 
features  ;  with  a  decided  and  unfaltering  step  he  boldly  treads  the  path 
of  antiquity,  with  all  the  tortuous  windings  of  which  he  is  thoroughly 

*  I.  A  compendious  Ecclesiastical  History,  from  the  earliest  period  to  the  present 
time.  By  the  Rev.  William  Palmer,  M.  A.,  of  Worcester  Colle^^e,  Oxford;  author 
of  Origines  Liturgicoe,  &c.,  &c.  With  a  Preface  and  Notes  by  an  American  Editor. 
New  York,  1841.  1  vol.  l2mo.  pp.  228. 

II.  Praelectiones  Historise  Ecclesiasticte,  quas  in  Collegio  Urbano  Sacrae  Congre- 
gationis  de  Propaganda  Eide,  et  in  Pontificio  Seminario  Romano  habuit  Joannes 
Baptista  Palma,  Sacerdos  Romanus,  Hist.  Eccles.  Professor.  Toini  IV,  8vo.  Roma, 
1838—  1840. 

(Lectures  on  Ecclesiastical  History,  delivered  in  the  Urban  College  of  the  Sacred 
Congregation  de  Propaganda  Fide,  and  in  the  Pontifical  Seminary  of  Rome  ,  by 
John  Baptist  Palma,  a  Roman  Priest,  Professor  of  Ecclesiastical  History. 

F2  5  17 


18 


CHURCH  HISTORY. 


acquainted.  The  Oxford  Palmer  is  less  decided  in  his  historical 
character ;  though  he  betrays  no  lack  of  confidence  in  his  assertions, — 
else  he  were  not  a  genuine  Englishman, —  yet  he  appears  to  pursue  the 
ancient  path  with  the  uncertain  air  of  one  who  hesitates,  and  is  not  well 
acquainted  with  the  road.  As  the  French  would  say,  he  is  evidently 
gene  ;  '  he  appears  like  a  stranger  in  a  foreign  country,  who  would  fain 
act  as  thouo-h  he  were  at  home.  He  belongs  to  a  school  which  has 

o  o 

manifestly  been  for  too  short  a  time  in  the  remote  land  of  antiquity,  to 
have  become  naturalized  to  its  climate,  or  well  acquainted  with  its  rich 
productions. 

Nor  does  the  contrast  stop  here.  The  two  professors  meet  indeed  on 
the  common  field  of  Church  History,  yet  do  they  pursue  routes  so 
different,  as  seldom  to  come  in  contact  with  each  other.  The  Roman 
bears  “  the  labor  of  the  day  and  the  heat ;  ”  he  turns  up  the  soil,  waters 
it  with  the  sweat  of  his  brow,  and  cultivates  it  with  untiring  industry. 
The  Oxfordite  skims  lightly  over  its  surface  ;  gambols  about  its  borders, 
culling  a  flower  here,  and  plucking  a  fruit  there ;  and,  for  the 
.amusement  or  gratification  of  his  readers,  we  apprehend,  he  often 
•trips,  falls,  or  turns  somersets  ! 

Dropping  the  figure,  the  Roman  professor  enters  critically  into  his 
subject ;  he  gives  us  both  sides  of  every  question  which  he  handles  ;  he 
furnishes  his  authorities  as  he  proceeds  ;  he  states  and  refutes  objections, 
ancient  and  modern  :  and  when  you  have  read  his'  history,  you  are 
compelled  to  say,  either  that  he  has  reason  on  his  side,  or  at  least,  that 
his  views  and  statements  are  very  plausible.  The  Oxfordite  is  far  from 
entering  on  any  such  dull  and  plodding  labor.  He  would  seem  to  con¬ 
sider  it  a  bootless  toil.  Except  scriptural  quotations,  and  one  reference  to 
his  own  works,  and  another  to  the  authority  of  the  Protestant  archbishop 
Usher,  he  does  not,  we  believe,  give  us  one  single  reference  from  the 
beginning  to  the  end  of  his  work  !  He  furnishes  many  passages  from 
the  ancient  documents,  but  he  does  not  tell  us  once  whence  they  are 
taken  ;  and  unless  his  readers  are  so  conversant  with  those  writings,  as 
■  to  be  able  to  hunt  up  and  examine  his  quotations  for  themselves,  they 
•  must  wholly  rely  on  his  bare  word  for  their  genuineness  and. accuracy. 

This  is  a  most  serious  defect.  Nor  let  it  be  alleged,  that  suqh 
:  learned  references  are  out  of  place  in  a  work  avowedly  intended  for 
popular  use.  In  such  books,  they  are  perhaps  more  requisite  than  in 
•any  other,  for  the  reason  just  assigned.  Without  some  such  guide,  the 
i unlearned  are  left  wholly  at  the  mercy  of  every  smatterer  and  theorizer, 
who  may  choose  to  embody  his  peculiar  views  in  the  form  of  history. 
And  this  is  unhappily  but  too  often  the  case  in  popular  works,  especially 
in  those  written  in  the  English  language  to  suit  the  palate  of  Protestant 
readers.  Of  no  book,  perhaps,  is  it  more  true  than  of  Palmer’s  Church 
History.  If  any  one  ever  needed  proofs  in  support  of  his  assertions,  he 
surely  does,  as  we  hope  abundantly  to  show  in  the  sequel. 


1  Constrained  —  ill  at  ease. 


THE  EARLY  AGES. 


19 


,  For  our  own  part,  we  would  not  give  a  rush  for  the  statements  of  any 
mere  partisan  historian,  unless  they  be  confirmed  by  constant  references  to 
the  original  authorities.  We  like  to  have  chapter  and  verse  for  every 
thing.  We  value  those  historical  books  only,  the  margins  of  which  are 
filled  with  quotations  of  the  proper  documents,  and  the  writers  of  which 
give  sufficient  evidence  that  they  have  not  taken  these  authorities  at 
second  hand,  but  hive  drunk  deeply  themselves  at  the  fountain  heads. 
We  like  books  written  after  the  manner  of  Lingard’s  History  of  England. 
There  is  at  least  some  satisfaction  in  reading  such  works.  One  feels  that 
he  has  a  guide,  which  he  can  consult  in  an  emergency.  But  when  there 
is  nothing  to  depend  on,  but  the  mere  assertions  of  a  flippant  writer,  who 
is  evidently  not  unbiased  in  his  views,  every  impartial  judge  must 
receive  such  statements  with  distrust.  They  are  somewhat  like  the 
tedious' and  over-colored  narratives  of  a  traveler,  who  retails  his  “first 
impressions”  of  a  foreign  country  entirely  from  memory.  They  have 
not  the  weight,  and  they  merit  not  the  name  of  real  history.  We  make 
these  general  remarks,  because,  as  we  shall  see,  they  are  fully  applicable 
to  the  work  of  Palmer,  and  because  in  this  age  of  specious  historical 
theories,  pompously  styling  themselves  philosophies  of  history,  one 
cannot  be  too  guarded  in  relation  to  the  statements  he  is  called  on  to 
credit. 

It  will  be  easily  gathered  from  what  we  have  thus  far  said,  that  in 
comparing  the  Oxford  Palmer  with  the  Roman  Palma,  we  are  compelled 
to  award  the  palm  to  the  latter.  Here  we  have  at  least  one  genuine 
Roman  priest.  All  who  were  acquainted  with  him  could  not  fail  to 
mark  his  great  erudition,  his  moderation  and  modesty  in  his  statements, 
and  his  extensive  learning  and  research.  For  more  than  twenty  years, 
he  was  a  distinguished  professor  of  Church  History  in  two  of  the 
twenty-four  great  colleges  of  Rome.'  He  became  gray  in  this  delightful 
study.  It  grew  to  be  identified  with  his  very  being,  and  it  was  almost 
the  idol  of  his  devotion.  He  thoroughly  examined  all  the  original 
documents  which  he  cites  :  and  this  minute  and  critical  knowledsre  of 
antiquity  appears  on  every  page  of  his  work.  This  learned  erudition 
is,  in  fact,  a  distinctive  characteristic  of  Italian  writers  generally ;  ,as  the 
contrary  feature, —  that  of  superficial  flippancy, —  is  distinctive  of  most 
Enoflish  writers,  and  of  few  more  so  than  of  Palmer. 

Our  chief  object,  in  this  paper,  is  to  present  a  summary  review  of  the 
Compendious  Ecclesiastical  History  by  the  Oxford  Professor.  But  our 
limits  will  allow  us  merely  to  touch  very  briefly  on  the  chief  character 
of  the  work.  To  examine  all  the  historian’s  statements,  to  supply  all 
his  omissions,  and  to  correct  all  his  errors,  would  require  a  volume  much 
larger  than  the  one  he  lias  given  to  the  world.  As  he  gives  no  proof 
whatever  for  anything  he  asserts,  we  would  be  justified  in  repelling 

1  He  became  afterwards  Latin  Secretary  of  the  present  sovereign  Pontiff,  and  in  the  disgraceful 
attack  on  the  papal  palace  which  followed  the  assassination  of  the  late  Count  Rossi,  he  was  shot 
dead  by  one  of  the  assassins,  almost  by  the  side  of  his  illustrious  sovereign. 


20 


CHURCH  HISTORY. 


gratuitous  assertion,  by  mere  denial  without  proof.  Tliis  would  be  in 
accordance  with  the  well-known  aphorism  :  quod  gratis  asseritur  gratis 
negatur  —  “what  is  asserted  gratuitously  may  be  denied  gratuitously. 
But  we  will  do  a  Catholic  work  of  supererogation,  and  supply  proof  as 
we  proceed ;  at  least  as  far  as  our  limits  will  possibly  allow. 

We  would  not  be  understood  as  condemning  indiscriminately  the  his¬ 
tory  of  Professor  Palmer.  The  book  has  many  good  qualities,  which  we 
greatly  admire.  We  have  been  much  pleased  with  its  general  plan  and 
scope,  and  with  the  division  into  epochs,  with,  however,  one  exception, 
to  which  reference  will  soon  be  made.  The  chief  excellence  with  which 
we  were  struck,  is  a  certain  pious  vein  which  pervades  the  work,  sus¬ 
tained  by  appropriate  and  select  examples  of  ancient  sanctity.  In  this 
feature  we  are  delighted  to  recognize  no  little  of  the  true  Catholic  spirit. 

He  lay.s  down  the  plan  of  his  work  in  the  first,  or  introductory  chap¬ 
ter.  He  says : 

“  Tlie  history  of  the  Church,  then,  is  not  like  other  histories,  in  which 
the  progress  and  fate  of  human  enterprises  is  [are?)  described;  it  is  the 
fulfillment  of  God’s ^will  for  the  salvation  of  man,  the  accomplishment 
of  prophecies,  the  triumph  of  grace  over  the  imperfection  and  sins  of 
nature.  The  perpetuity  of  the  Church,  its  propagation  in  all  nations, 
the  succession  of  the  true  faith,  the  manifestation  of  the  Holy  Spirit’s 
assistance  in  the  lives  of  Christians;  the  calamities,  errors,  afflictions, 
which,  in  all  ages,  beset  it — afford  new  proofs  of  Christianity  itself,  and 
inspire  the  devout  mind  with  humility  and  faith.”  ‘ 

In  another  place,  he  says ; 

“  The  promises  of  our  Lord  to  his  Disciples,  that  the  Spirit  of  Truth 
should  lead  them  into  all  truth,  and  abide  with  them  forever,  that  the 
gates  of  hell  should  not  prevail  against  his  Church,  and  that  he  himself 
would  be  always  with  his  Disciples  —  imply  that  the  faith  revealed  by 
Jesus  Christ  should,  in  every  age,  continue  to  purify  and  sanctify  the 
hearts  and  lives  of  his  real  followers ;  and  we  may  hence  infer  that  the 
belief  which  has,  in  all  ages,  been  derived  by  the  Church  from  the  holy 
Scriptures;  the  great  truths  which  Christians  have  always  unanimouslv 
held  to  be  essential  to  the  Christian  profession ;  which  have  supported 
them  under  the  tortures  of  martyrdom,  and  transformed  them  from  sin 
to  righteousness  ;  that  such  doctrine^  are,  without  doubt,  the  very  same 
which  God  himself  revealed  for  the  salvation  of  man.”  ^ 

From  the  solemn  promises  of  Christ  just  alluded  to,  we  would  infer 
more  than  suited  the  purpose  of  the  Oxford  divine.  We  would  infer 
that  the  belief  which  was  held  in  all  ages  of  the  Church  as  the  revela¬ 
tion  of  God,  was  derived  from,  or  conformable  to,  the  holy  Scriptures. 
If  the  Church,  in  her  official  capacity,  could  be  mistaken  in  the  under¬ 
standing  of  the  Scriptures,  then  were  all  the  solemn  promises  of  Christ 
of  no  avail,  and  utterly  nugatory.  The  question  would  constantly  recur 
—  did  the  Church  actually  derive  such  and  such  doctrines  from  the 
written  Word  of  God?  And  if  private  judgment  said  she  did  not,  the 
principle  implied  by  Dr.  Palmer  above  would  require  that  such  tenets 


1  Introduction,  p.  4. 


2  Pp.  10,  11,  chap.  ii. 


THE  EARLY  AGES. 


21 


should  be  rejected.  He  thus  upsets  with  one  hand,  what  he  had  built 
up  with  the  other !  Consistency  is  a  jewel,  which  sparkles  only  on  the 
brow  of  truth. 

Tliere  is  also,  it  seems  to  us,  in  the  above  passage,  an  implied  asser¬ 
tion  of  the  hackneyed  distinction  of  Jurieu  between  essential  and  non- 
essential  (Joctrines,  the  former  of  which  must  be  received,  and  the  latter 
may  be  rejected  without  sin.  We  utterly  eschew  this  leveling  principle, 
which  opens  wide  the  door  to  latitudinarianism  and  indifference  in  mat¬ 
ters  of  religion.  The  Scriptures  make  no  such  distinction  ;  Christ  made 
none  such,  when  he  said :  “He  that  believeth  not,  shall  be  condemned.”  * 
Whatever  Christ  taught  and  his  apostles  promulgated  as  doctrine,  no 
matter  how  trivial  it  may  seem  to  proud  human  wisdom,  is  equally 
essential  to  faith.  Of  the  objects  of  faith,  it  is  as  true  as  it  is  of  those 
ofmoials,that  “he  whooffendeth  in  one  is  become  guilty  of  all.”  ^ 

We  have  remarked  on  these  passages,  because  they  afford  a  clue  to 
the  entire  work.  They  exhibit  the  object  and  purpose  of  the  writer  in 
composing  his  history.  And  they  lead  us  to  suspect,  what  the  perusal 
of  the  work  clearly  proves,  that  it  is  Church  History  set  to  Puseyism,  or 
rather  Puseyism  set  to  Church  History.  The  Professor  started  out  with 
assuming  his  preconceived  theory,  half  Catholic  and  half  Protestant,  and 
he  consequently  makes  the  facts  of  history  bend  to  its  maxims;  hence ^ 
his  frequent  blunders  in  point  of  fact,  and  hence  the  partisan  spirit 
which  evidently  pervades  his  whole  publication. 

The  history  comes  before  the  American  reading  community  under 
the  sanction  and  sponsorship  of  a  distinguished  individual, —  no  less  a 
personage,  we  are  given  to  understand,  than  the  Right  Reverend  W.  R. 
Whittingham,  the  Protestant  Episcopal  bishop  of  Maryland.  He  is  the 
“American  editor”  who  writes  the  preface  and  notes.  We  had  been  told, 
that  Bishop  Whittingham  stood  high  among  his  brother  religionists  for 
his  learning  and  ability.  If  such  be  the  case,  he  has  certainly  given  us  a 
very  poor  specimen  of  both,  in  his  office  of  American  editor  of  Palmer. 
As  we  hope  to  prove  hereafter,  the  work  would  have  been  much  more 
accurate  without  his  notes ;  and  it  would  even  have  suffered  very  little 
from  the  omission  of  his  preface.  The  notes  are,  almost  without  an 
exception,  grossly  inaccurate  in  point  of  fact ;  they  are,  in  general,  an 
attempt  either  to  falsify  the  true  statements  of  Palmer,  or  to  make  bad 
worse.  And,  like  this  author,  he  too  would  have  us  believe  him  on  his 
bare  word  ! 

In  his  preface,  he  thus  indorses  the  statements  of  the  Oxford  historian  : 

“A  great  degree  of  accuracy  in  general  outline  and  in  minute  detail 
wherever  that  is  given,  is  another  admirable  characteristic  of  Mr.  Pal¬ 
mer’s  work.  It  has  been  increased,  perhaps  [perhaps  ! )y  by  the  correc¬ 
tion  of  one  or  two  slips  of  a  hasty  pen,  in  this  edition ;  and  the  minute 
differences,  of  statement  or  opinion,  in  some  of  the  editor’s  additional 
notes,  will  show  how  thoroughly  he  shared  in  the  author’s  anxiety  to  be 


1  St.  Mark,  xvi. 


2  St.  James,  ii,  10. 


22' 


CHURCH  HISTORY. 


really  useful  —  an  end  to  be  attained,  in  a  work  like  this,  only  by  the 
most  sci:upulous  adherence  to  truth.  If  error  as  to  fact  be  found  in  the 
book  now  presented  to  the  reader,  it  has  escaped  not  only  the  attention, 
of  the  learned  and  indefatigable  author,  but  the  close  examination  of  his 
humble  and  grateful  fellow-laborer.”  ‘ 

We  scarcely  know  through  what  kind  of  glasses  the  Protest^t  bishop 
examined  Prof.  Palmer's  book ;  but  they  certainly  favored  obliquity  of 
vision.  They  were  probably  manufactured  at  Oxford,  and  partook  of  the 
doubtful  character  of  most  other  things  which  have  recently  emanated 
from  that  city.  The  manufacturer  must  have  age  and  experience  in  the 
business,  before  he  can  hope  to  produce  articles  of  real  merit.  If  the 
bishop  will  ^condescend  to  accept  our  offer,  made  in  all  courtesy  and 
kindness,  we  will  lend  him  a  pair  of  glasses,  of  the  real  Roman  grinding, 
without  a  single  flaw  ;  and  we  assure  him  that  through  them  he  will  be^ 
enabled  to  see  things  aright,  and  in  apiew  light  altogether. 

By  means  of  these  same  glasses,  we  have,  at  the  very  first  glance,  been 
able  to  detect  more  than  fifty  egregious  blunders  in  the  work,  including, 
of  course,  the  famous  notes,  nearly  all  of  which  we  have'been  constrained 
to  put  on  our  black  list.  These  errors,  many  of  them,  regard  important 
facts  ;  and  others  consist  of  unfair  statements,  or  of  omissions  in  matters, 
of  vitaP  consequence.  The  sun  was  thought  to  be  without  spots,  until 
the  Jesuit  Scheiner,  or  the  Catholic  philosopher  Galileo,  proved  their 
existence  by  means  of  the  telescope.  Dr.  Palmer’s  book  has  even  more 
spots  than  the  sun,  though  Bishop  Whittingham  could  not  discover  them. 
And  no  wonder,  as  the  Oxford  glasses  which  he  used,  mystify  more, 
and  are,  therefore,  less  serviceable  than  even  the  naked  eye  ! 

Mr.  Palmer  divides  his  history  into  five  epoclis.  We  will  give  his  own 
language,  which  contains  the  gist  of  his  new  Puseyite  theory  of  Church' 
History. 

“  First,  the  ages  of  persecution  which  terminated  with  the  accession  of 
the  Emperor  Constantine  to  universal  empire,  in  A.  D.  320,  and  during 
which  the  Church  was  purest. 

“Secondly,  the  ages  (A.  D.  320  —  680)  when  heresies  invaded  the 
Church,  and  were  repelled  by  the  six  holy  oecumenical  synods  ;  and 
when  the  ravages  of  barbarians  and  heathens  were  counterbalanced  by  the 
conversion  of  many  nations. 

“Thirdly,  the  period  (680 —  1054)  in  which  ignorance,  worldliness, 
and  superstition  ( !)  began  to  fall  thickly  on  the  Church,  though  an  earnest 
spirit  of  piety  still  continued  to  produce  evangelists,  saints,  and  martyrs, 
and  to  add  wide  regions  to  the  Church  of  Christ. 

“Fourthly,  the  times  (1054 —  1517)  when  the  east  and  west  were 
estranged  by  the  ambition  of  the  Roman  Pontiffs  (!)  ;  when  tliose  bishops, 
elevated  to  the  summit  of  temporal  and  spiritual  power  in  the  west, 
introduced  numberless  corruptions  and  innovations  (!)  ;  and  when  their 
power  began  to  fade  away.  ( ! ) 

“Fifthly,  the  epoch  f}5\7 —  1839)  when  a  reformation  being  called 
for,  was  resisted  by  those  wlio  ought  to  have  promoted  it  (!)  ;  wlien  the 


\ 


1  Preface,  p.  9. 


THE  EARLY  AGES. 


2a. 

western  Church  became  divided;  and  at  length  infidelity  came  to  tlireateU; 
universal  destruction.”* 

Here  are  misstatements  enough  surely,  especially  under  the  three  last; 
epochs.  But  these  apart,  ■ —  of  which  more  hereafter,  —  we  are  pleased 
with  the  division,  with  the  exception  of  the  second  epoch,  which  is  made,, 
whimsically  enough,  to  terminate  at  the  sixth  general  council ;  these  six, 
councils  being  all  that  it  suited  Mr.  Palmer’s  purpose  to  admit,  out  of  at 
least  eighteen  such  assemblies,  which  have  equal  claims  with  those  to  be,, 
general  councils.  But  the  others  were  far  too ‘popish  to  suit  the  fastidious 
Oxford  palate  ! 

For  the  sake  of  convenience,  we  will  briefly  run  over  these  epochs,  as, 
they  come  in  order  of  lime,  availing  ourselves  of  the  author’s  admissions, 
supplying  sonie  of  his  many  omissions,  and  correcting  a  few  of  his  more 
glaring  blunders  as  we  proceed.  .  We  could  not  correct  all ;  nor  even  half,, 
without  re-writing  his  whole  history.  Nor  do  we  intend  in  our  rapid 
sketch  to  forget  to  pay  our  respects,  as  in  duty  bound,  to  Bishop  Whit- 
tino'ham,  the  Right  Reverend  editor  and  annotator. 

O  ’  o  , 


EPOCH  I,  A.  D.  34  —  320.^ 

During  this  epoch.  Professor  Palmer  tells  us  that  “the  Church  was 
purest,^*  We  do  not  object  to  this  term  of  praise,  if  it  be  meant  only  to, 
imply,  that  Christians  were  then  in  general  more  fervent,  more  disen-, 
gaged  from  the  world,  and  more  self-devoted  and  heroic.  If  it  be  meant- 
to  signify,  that  there  were  no  moral  disorders  or  heresies  among  the  early 
Christians,  or  that  the  Church,  as  a  Church,  was  then  more  pure  in 
doctrine  than  subsequently,  as  would  appear  to  be  the  historian’s  drift, 
then  do  we  protest  against  the  use  of  the  term.  The  writings  of  the. 
earliest  fathers,  and  especially  those  of  Tertullian  and  St.  Cyprian,’, 
abundantly  prove,  that  even  during  the  first  three  centuries,  there  were, 
as  Christ  had  foretold  there  would  be  in  all  ages,  grievous  scandals  to  be 
deplored;  while  the  five  books  of  St.  Irenaeus  “against  heresies,”  and 
more  especially  the  historical  work  of  St.  Epiphanius  on  the  same  subject, 
establish  the  fact,  that  then,  as  subsequently,  the  purity  of  the  faith  was 
repeatedly  assailed.  But  the  Church  triumphed  then,  as  afterwards, 
because  Christ,  her  divine  Spouse,  had  solemnly  promised  that  she  should 
triumph.  We  make  these  remarks,  because  Protestant  writers,  with  a 
view  to  establish  their  preconceived  theory  of  a  defection  of  the  Church 
in  the  fourth  and  following  centuries,  from  the  disorders  which  then 
occasionally  prevailed,  have  been  too  much  in  the  habit  of  concealing 
these  incontestable  facts,  and  of  drawing  a  too  highly  colored  picture  of 
earlier  purity. 

This  w'-as  emphatically  a  period  of  struggle  and  of  per'^ecution.  The 

1  P.  5  2  Embraced  in  the  first  six  chapters, from  p.  Ito  p.  31. 

S  In  their  respective  treatises —  De  Panitentia  and  De  Lapsis,  and  in  iheir  other  works.  . 


24 


CHURCH  HISTORY. 


Church  then  passed  through  a  fiery  ordeal :  for  two  hundred  and  fifty 
years  the  colossal  power  of  the  Roman  empire  was  employed  to  crush  her: 
the'  blood  of  her  martyrs  flowed  like  water ;  but  like  water  it  served  to 
fertilize  the  earth  !  Christ  triumphed  in  his  spouse  :  his  promises  were 
redeemed ;  the  “  gates  of  hell  did  not  prevail ;  ”  twelve  poor  fishermen 
conquered  the  world,  and  reared  the  cross  on  the  proudest  monuments 
of  fallen  Rome  !  The  chief , persecutors  died  a  terrible  death,  so  graphi¬ 
cally  painted  by  the  eloquent  Lactantius,  in  the  fourth  century.^  Why 
did  not  our  historian  at  least  allude  to  this  remarkable  fact  ?  His  whole 
account  in  fact  of  the  ten  general  persecutions,^  is  very  meagre  and 
imperfect,  even  for  a  compendious  history.  He,  however,  gives  us  in  full 
the  beautiful  letter  of  the  church  of  Smyrna,  with  its  touching  account  of 
the  martyrdom  of  St.  Polycai  p,’’  concluding  with  a  passage  which  clearly 
proves  the  veneration  paid,  in  the  earliest -times,  to  the  sacred  remains  of 
the  martyrs. 

Speaking  of  the  Donatists,  who  separated  from  the  Church  early  in  the 
fourth  century,  he  uses  this  language  :  “  These  sectarians,  called  Dona¬ 

tists,  were,  after  full  examination  of  their  cause  by  councils  of  bishops 
and  by  the  emperor  Constantine,  universally  rejected  and  condemned. 
They  continued,  however,  for  two  or  three  centuries  to  disturb  and 
persecute  the  Church  in  Africa.  Separations  like  these,  where  rival 
worship  was  established,  were  in  those  ages  regarded  as  most  heinous  sins, 
and  destructive  of  salvation.”^  This  is  truly  a  sweeping  admission, 
extorted  by  the  most  overwhelming  evidence  of  history.  It  seals  the 
death  warrant  of  all  those  separatists  of  modern  times,  who  have  “  estab¬ 
lished  rival  worships,”  including  of  course  the  Anglican  Church,  which 
fairly  comes  under  this  category  ! 

Among  his  many  important  omissions  during  the  epoch  under  consid¬ 
eration,  we  will  briefly  allude  to  the  following.  He  does  not  tell  us  that 
St.  Peter  went  to  Rome  and  died  there  ;  a  fact  to  which  all  antiquity  bears 
evidence,®  and  which  he  himself  is  forced  afterwards  to  grant.  He  even 
says  :  “the  date  of  St.  Peter’s  epistle  from  Babylon  suggests  the  proba¬ 
bility  of  his  having  preached  in  Chaldea;  whereas  it  is  a  notorious  fact, 
admitted  we  think  by  all  the  learned,  that  Babylon  of  Chaldea  was  not 
then  in  existence.  Grotius,  a  learned  Protestant,  and  others,  with  much 
more  probability,  think  that  by  Babylon  St.  Peter  meant  Pagan  Rome,, 
which  St.  John  and  the  early  Christians  designated  by  that  name. 

He  likewise  makes  no  mention  whatever  of  the  famous  miracle  obtained 
by  the  prayers  of  the  Christian  legion,  which  served  in  the  army  of 
Marcus  Aurelius,  in  his  expedition  against  the  Quadi  and  Marcomanni. 
The  miracle  secured  victory  to  the  imperial  arms,  in  a  most  signal 
manner,  and  under  the  most  trying  circumstances.  It  was  public  and 
notorious  ;  it  is  attested  by  Tertullian  and  Eusebius,  and  is  established 

1  Be  Morte  Per.secutoriim,  2  P.  \^.et.seq.  3  P.  16,  4  P.27. 

6  Among  orlier  works  on  this  suViject,  see  Fogginio —  De  itinere  Romano  et  Episcopatu  D.  Petti 
JtoI.  4'o. —  where  overwhelming  evidence  on  the  subject  is  accumulated.  6  P.  8. 


THE  EARLY  AGES. 


25 


by  other  incontestable  evidence.  It  was  most  glorious  for  the  Christian 
name,  and  it  obtained  from  the  emperor  himself  for  the  legion  the  title 
of  legio  totmns,  or  thundering  legion.' 

Another  omission,  much  more  important  still,  is  that  of  the  discipUna 
arcani,  or  discipline  of  secret,  very  common  in  the  early  Church  ;  and 
without  which,  in  fact,  it  is  almost  impossible  to  understand  tlie  faith 
and  worship  of  the  epoch  of  which  we  are  speaking.  This  discipline’ 
required  caution  and  concealment  in  speaking,  before  pagans  and  the 
uninitiated,  of  the  greater  mysteries  of  the  Christian  faith,  such  as  the 
Trinity  and  the  Eucharist,  in  order  not  “  to  throw  pearls  before  swine.”  ^ 
The  unquestionable  prevalence  of  this  discipline,  is  a  triumphant  evidence 
of  the  belief  in*  the  real  presence  during  that  period.^  Was  this  the 
reason  why  our  historian  said  nothing  about  it  ? 

He  is  himself  very  fond  of  this  same  discipline  of  secret,  in  regard  to 
those  things  which  he  did  not  find  it  expedient  to  state,  because  they 
might  be  opposed  to  his  theory.  Thus  he  tells  us  “  of  the  Gnostics  and 
Manicheans,''  who  held  that  our  Lord’s  body  was  not  real,  but  a  mere 
phantom,  and  that  he  did  not  die  on  the  cross ;  but  he  forgot  to  give 
us  this  testimony  of  St.  Ignatius,  martyr,  bearing  directly  on  the  subject : 
‘‘they  (the  Gnostics)  abstain  from  the  Eucharist  and  from  prayer, 
because  they  do  not  acknowledge  the  Eucharist  to  be  the  f,esh  of  our 
Lord  Jesus  Christ  which  suffered  for  our  sins,  and  which  the  Father  by 
his  goodness  resuscitated F  ^ 

We  should  be  endless,  were  we  to  attempt  to  supply  all  his  important 
omissions  in  this  way.  For  once,  however,  he  violates  the  discipline  of 
secret,  and  gives  us  pretty  correctly  the  famous  testimony  of  St.  Justin, 
martyr,  on  the  holy  Eucharist.  The  philosopher  martyr  had  set  him  the 
example  for  this  violation,  as  he  had  found  it  necessary,  for  the  defense 
of  Christianity  against  the  base  slanders  of  its  enemies,  to  speak  out 
plainly  on  the  belief  of  the  early  Christians  upon  this  subject, —  too 
plainly  as  we  shall  see  to  suit  the  taste  of  our  Oxford  divine.  Here  are 
his  words  as  cited  by  Mr.  Palmer:  “We  do  not  receive  it  (the 
Eucharist)  as  common  bread  £>r  common  drink  ;  but  as,  by  the  word  of 
God,  our  Savior  Jesus  Christ  was  incarnate,  and  had  flesh  and  blood 
for  our  salvation,  so  also  we  have  been  instructed  that  the  f^od,  blessed 
by  the  word  of  prayer  which  is  from  him,  through  which  our  flesh  and 
blood  by  a  change  are  nourished,  is  (spiritually)  the  flesh  and  blood  of 
that  incarnate  Jesus.”  ^ 

That  word  spiritually,  it  is  almost  needless  to  say,  came  from  Oxford  ; 

1  For  a  full  account  and  vindication  of  this  miriicle,  see  Palma,  Prcelectiones.  vol.  i,  P.  1,  p  76,  et 
seq.  c.  xiv. 

2  Palma,  ibid.  p.  82,  ei  seq.  The  best  thing  on  the  subject  is  perhaps  the  learned  dissertation  of 
Schelestrate — De  DiscipUna  Arcani. 

3 See  “Faith  of  Catholics,”  vol  ii,  p.  158,  seq^.,  Edition  of  Dolman,  London,  1848;  in  3  vols.  8vo. 
See  also  tb“  “  Amicable  Discussion  ” 

4  'Ve  greatly  doubt' whether  the  Manicheans  taught  any  such  thing.  5  P.  135. 

6Epistola  ad  Smyrnaeos,  p.  36,  tom.  ii,  PP.  Apostolic.  Amstelodaini,  1724. 

7  The  passage  is  taken  from  an  apology  (the  first)  of  St.  Justin  to  the  Iloinan  emperor  and  senate  — 
though  it  might  be  taKen  from  any  other  of  St  Justiii’s  writings,  for  all  .Mr.  Palmer  tells  us. 

G 


26 


CHURCH  HISTORY. 


and  like  many  other  things  that  have  lately  come  from  Oxford,  it  makes 
arrant  nonsense.  It  makes  St.  Justin  say,  that  as  Christ  took  flesh 
really,  so  “  the  food,”  (fee.  becomes  his  flesh  spiritually  !  Why  was  that 
word  interjected  at  all,  unless  it  was  thought  and  felt,  that  the  sense 
would  be  very  different  without  it  ?  Are  we  to  give  credit  to  Mr. 
Palmer  for  this  interpolation,  or  is  it  ''  a  hasty  slip  of  the  pen,”  by  his 
Rio’ht  Reverend  editor  and  commentator  ? 

O 

The  errors  of  our  historian  in  point  of  fact,  though  not  so  numerous 
in  this  as  m  the  subsequent  epochs  of  his  history,  yet  are  frequent.  He 
seems  to  have  an  instinctive  dislike  for  the  bishops  of  Rome,  and  wherever 
they  are  concerned,  you  may  expect  from  him  little  accuracy  or  fairness. 
Thus  he  tells  us  roundly,  that  Victor,  bishop  of  Rome,  towards  the 
close  of  the*  second  century,  “proceeded  to  the  extent  of  separating 
them  (the  Asiatics)  from  his  communion  ;  an  act,”  he  continues,  “which 
was  disapproved  of  by  St.  Irenaeus  and  the  greater  part  of  the  Church.”  ‘ 
It  is  much  more  probable,  to  say  the  least,  that  Victor  merely  threatened 
excommunication,  and  was  dissuaded  from  carrying  his  threat  into 
execution,  as  he  had  the  power  to  do,  by  the  arguments  of  St.  Irenaeus. 
It  is  not  true  that  “  the  greater  part  of  the  Church  disapproved  of  his 
conduct.”  He  was  certainly  in  the  right,  and  the  general  council  of 
Nice,  in  325,  which  we  apprehend  represented  “the  greater  part  of 
the  Church,”  decided  that  he  was  right,'  and  excommunicated  all  who 
would  thereafter  persist  in  the  practice  adopted  by  the  Asiatics.  ^ 

His  account  of  the  controversy  between  St.  Stephen  and  St.  Cyprian, 
on  re-baptizing  those  baptized  by  heretics,  is  yet  more  glaringly  inaccu¬ 
rate.  He  tells  us,  that  “  Stephen  insisted  that  the  custom  of  the  Roman 
Church  should  be  adopted,  and  separated  the  African  churches,  on 
their  refusal,  from  his  communion.  This  act,  however,  was  not 
approved  or  recognized  by  the  majority  of  bishops.”  ^  The  contrary  is 
the  fact.  St.  Augustine  tells  us  that  Cyprian  “  continued  in  the  peace 
of  unity  with  St.  Stephen  and  St.  Jerome  says  the  same.^  Their 
testimony  is  at  least  as  good  as  Mr.  Palmer’s  flippant  assertions.  And 
as  to  the  majority  of  bishops  having  been  opposed  to  Stephen,  it  is 
utterly  false,  and  we  challenge  proof  to  the  contrary.  St.  Augustine 
assures  us,  in  many  places  of  his  voluminous  writings  on  the  subject, 
that  a  “plenary  council”  decided  in  favor  of  Stephen,  and  that  the 
whole  Church  agreed  with  him.  At  the  time  of  tlie  controversy  itself, 
numerous  councils  were  held  in  various  parts  of  the  Church,  which 
approved  of  the  course  adopted  by  the  Roman  Pontiff*.® 

By  the  way,  it  is  a  singular  fact,  that,  in  some  way  or  other,  the 
Roman  Pontiffs,  from  the  earliest  days  of  the  Church,  always  triumphed 
because  th^y  always  happened  to  be  right :  and  their  triumph  in  the 
persons  of  Victor  and  Stephen  is  a  conclusive  proof  that  the  primacy 

IP.  25.  2  See  Palma,  PrcBlectiones,  vol.  i,  P.  1,  p.  2Utj,  et  stq.  for  all  the  documents  on  this  8uPj«3Cb 
yP.  26.  4De  Baptismo,  lib.  iy,  c.  25 — “  Kum  in  unitatis  pace  cum  eo  permausisse.” 

6  Dialog  adversus  Luciferianos.  6  Palma,  vol  i,  P.  I,  p.  163,  et  seq,  and  p.  142,  et  seq. 


\ 


THE  EARLY  AGES. 


27 


¥ 


was  tlien  recognized.  Else  why  would  men  so  holy  have  ever  thought  of 
excommunicating  churches  in  Africa  and  Asia  ?  And  why  did  not  the 
Church  protest  against  this  usurpation,  if  it  was  an  usurpation  ?  In  both 
those  controversies,  it  is  remarkable  that  the  opponents  of  the  PontitTs 
never  once  thought  of  questioning  their  ri^ht  oi*  poive?'  to  excommuni¬ 
cate  :  tl'.ey  merely  deprecated  its  exercise.  If  Mr.  Palmer  is  so  much 
pleased  with  the  practice  of  the  Asiatics  in  keeping  Easter,  why  does 
not  his  Church  now  adopt  it,  instead  of  the  contrary  one  of  Rome  ? 

These  facts  may  enable  us  to  judge,  what  credit  is  due  to  the  assertion 
of  our  historian,  that  though  “  some  churches  had  pre-eminent  dis¬ 
tinction  on  account  of  their  opulence  and  magnitude,’^  yet  “all  bishops 
and  churches,  however,  were  regarded  as  perfectly  equal  in  the  sight 
of  God,  (and  of  men?)  and  regulated  their  own  affairs,  and  exercised 
discipline  with  perfect  freedom.”  *  The  testimony  of  Iren8eus,  and  the 
voice  *  of  all  antiquity,  trace  the  pre-eminence  of  certain  churches  to 
other  causes  altogether,  than  those  carnal-minded  ones  assigned  by  Mi. 
Palmer.  They  tells  us,  that  the  Roman  see  was  the  “  chair  of  Peter 
that  the  second  in  pre-eminence,  that  of  Alexandria,  was  founded  by 
Peter’s  disciple,  Mark  ;  and  that  the  third,  Antioch,  was  Peter’s  see, 
before  he  removed  to  Rome.  A  volume  might  be  filled  with  testimonies 
to  prove  that  the  Roman  Pontiffs  held  the  primacy  from  the  beginning 
of  the  Church.  Archbishop  Kenrick’s  triumphant  work  on  the  Primacy 
is  a  tissue  of  such  authorities.  Would  not  Bishop  Whittingham  do  well 
to  edit  this  work  also  “  with  notes  ?”  It  is  an  answer  to  a  publication 
by  one  of  his  own  brother  bishops,  and  it  yet  remains,  perhaps  for  a  very 
obvious  reason,  unanswered. 

By  the  by,  we  have  little  fault  to  find  with  the  bishop’s  notes  under 
this  epoch  :  but  we  suppose  it  is  chiefly  because  he  has  been  very 
reserved.  There  is,  however,  a  little  note  of  his  on  page  23,  in  which 
he  corrects  a  true  statement  of  Palmer,  who  had  asserted  in  the  text 
that  “  Irenaeus  was  crowned  witli  martyrdom.”  The  episcopal  annotator 
here  remarks  :  “  so  some  think,  but  without  sufficient  evidence.”  We 
know  not  what  new  light  has  been  shed  on  the  bishop’s  mind,  or  what 
evidence  he  would  deem  sufficient.  We  find  the  fact  stated  in  every. 
Church  liistorian  within  our  reach,  and  we  know  it  is  the  basis  of  a  very 
old  and  ireneral  Church  office.  It  has  ever  been  the  belief  of  the 
Church  of  Lyons,  which  keeps  the  feast  of  the  martyr  on  the  28’th  of 
June.  Though  it  is  a  matter  comparatively  unimportant,  we  are  really 
curious  to  know  what  facts  can  be  brought  to  prove,  that  Irenseus  did  not 
die  a  martyr  under  Septimius  Severus. 

We  might  remark  on  many  other  inaccuracies  under  this  first  epoch  ; 
but  the  subjects  will  recur  in  the  sequel,  and  we  must  hasten  on.  We 
merely  pause  to  notice,  in  passing,  our  author’s  singular  method  of 
accounting  for  the  conversion  of  the  emperor  Constantine.  He  says  : 

“  So  great  was  the  progress  of  religion,  notwithstanding  the  violent 


1  w  33. 


28 


CHURCH  HISTORY. 


and  cruel  persecutions  to  which  it  was  continually  exposed,  that  it 
became  no  less  the  interest  than  the  duty  of  the  first  Christian  emperor, 
Constantine  the  Great,  to  relieve  the  Church  fiom  persecution,  to  act  as 
the  defender  of  its  faith,  and  to  distinguish  its  ministers  and  members 
by  marks  of  his  favor  and  generosity.” 

We  had  thought,  in  our  simplicity,  that  Constantine  the  Great  was 
actuated  b}^  much  higher  and  purer  motives  tlian  interest.  We”  had  read 
in  Eusebius,  a  cotemporary  historian  of  higli  repute,  of  a  magnificent 
cross  which  appeared  to  him  at  noon-day  in  .the  heavens,  bearing  the 
motto:  “  fi/ T'ovT'w  jitxa”  —  IN  THIS  conquer;  and  that  Constantine  had 
made  a  banner  like  it,  called  the  Laharum,  wliich  beckoned  him  on  to 
victory.*  We  had  read  all  this  ;  but  we  suppose  that  if  Eusebius  had 
chanced  to  be  born  in  Oxford  in  these  latter  days,  this  and  all  other 
heavenly  visions  would  have  vanished  from  his  disenchanted  eyes  !  Well, 
we  admire  the  march  of  mind,  and  the  progress  of  enlightenment ! 


Epoch  II,  A.  D.  320 — 680.^ 

This  was,  in  a  more  particular  manner,  the  epoch  of  struggles  with, 
and  triumphs  over  heresy.  During  this  period  the  Church  saw  Arian- 
ism,  Macedonianism,  Nestorianism,  Eutychianism,  Pelagianism,  and 
Monothelitism,  rise  in  succession,  create  great  disturbances  for  a  time, 
and  then  sink  again  in  the  bosom  of  that  darkness  from  which  they  had 
emerged.  All  of  these  formidable  heresies,  except  Pelagianism,  originated 
among  the  subtle  and  disputatious  Greeks  of  the  Eastern  churcli. 
Rome  proscribed  them  all ;  and  tl>en,  as  ever  since,  the  voice  of  Rome 
was  re-echoed  through  the  world  by  the  great  body  of  bishops.  During 
this  period,  as  always,  the  successor  of  Peter  continued  to  fulfill  the 
divine  injunctions:  “Feed  my  lambs  ;  feed  my  sheep.”  ^  “And  thou 
(Peter)  being  once  converted,  confirm  thy  brethren.”  The  Lord  Jesus 
had  “prayed  for  Peter  that  his  faith  might  not  fail.”  ^  And,  accord¬ 
ingly,  St.  Cyjfl-ian,  in  the  third  century,  assures  us  that  “heretical  per¬ 
fidy  never  could  have  access  to  the  chair  of  Peter,  the  principal  Church, 
whence  the  sacerdotal  unity  took  its  rise.**  ®  All  ancient  Clmrch  History 
proclaims  this  remarkable  fact,  that  the  Roman  Pontiffs,  in  all  the  con¬ 
troversies  of  those  times,  were  ever  in  the  right  in  their  official  capacity. 

It  is  by  some  considered  as  doubtful,  whether  the  story  of  the  fall  of 
Pope  Liberius  be  well  founded.  If  he  subscribed  any  formulary  of  faith 
dift’erent  from  that  of  Nice,  it  is  certain,  that  such  formulary  was  not 
heretical,  but  merely  defective  ;  and  that  he  was  induced  to  yield  thus 
far,  while  under  restraint,  and  after  his  spirit  had  been  broken  by  a  two 

1  See  a  critical  examination  of  the  whole  matter  in  Palma,  vol.  i,  P  II,  p.  32,  et  seq. 

2  From  p  34— 74.  3  St.  John,  xxi,  15— 17.  4  Luke,  xxii,  32. 

6  Luke  xxii,  32.  6  Epist.  Iv,  p.  86. 


THE  EARLY  AGES. 


^29 


years’  rigorous  confinement.  AVhatever  he  did,  he  did  it  in  his  private 
capacity  alone,  and  not  as  the  pastor  of  the  universal  Church.  As  soon 
as  he  recovered  his  liberty,  it  is  admitted  on  all  hands,  that,  he  became 
a  most  staunch  defender  of  the  Church  against  Arianism  *  The  most 
ardent  advocates  of  papal  prerogative  never  once  dreamed  of  asserting 
that  the  Pope,  as  a  private  individual,  is  either  impeccable  or  infallible. 

The  only  other  Pontiff  who  has  been  charged  with  heresy,  with  any 
appearance  of  plausibility,  is  Honorius  I.,  who,  it  iS  alleged,  was  con- 
aemned  as  a  heretic  in  the  sixth  oecumenical  council,  held  in  680,  the 
last  year  of -the  present  epoch.  Mr.  Palmer^  evidently  chuckles  over 
the  supposed  fall  of  this  Pontiff.  But  it  is  not  even  pretended,  that 
Honorius  actually  defined  anything  against  Catholic  faith  ;  his  whole 
fault,  if  it  was  a  fault,  consisted  in  enjoining  silence  on  the  disputants  at 
the  first  commencement  of  the  controversy.  His  epistles  to  Sergius, 
bishop  of  Constantinople,  clearly  establish  this.  The  wily  Greek  had 
misrepresented  the  real  state  of  the  controversy,  and  had  deceived  the 
unsuspecting  Pontiff.  The  result  was  unfortunate,  as  the  enemies  of  the 
faith,  among  whom  Sergius  was  the  chief,  carefully  availed  themselves 
of  the  disciplinary  injunction  of  the  Pontiff,  to  spread  their  heresy  in 
the  East.  And  this  reason,  no  doubt,  prompted  the  council  to  condemn 
Honorius,  as  a  favorer  of  heretics.  This  council  was  composed  almost 
entirely  of  Greek  bishops,  whose  bosoms  were  already  swayed  by  a 
rising  jealousy  of  Rome  ;  which  feeling,  a  little  later,  led  them  into  open 
schism  :  ^  and  there  is  no  evidence,  that  the  incidental  charo'c  ao-ainst 

^  '  O  O 

Honorius  was  ever  approved  by  the  Western  Church. 

Our  historian  thus  speaks  of  the  origin  of  the  monastic  life:  —  the 
Italics  are  ours. 

“  Many  of  the  most  truly  pious  and  holy  men  whom  those  ages  pro¬ 
duced,  were  among  those  who  lived  retired  from  the  world,  and  who 
were  engaged  solely  in  the  service  of  God.  A  life  entirely  devoted  to 
religion,  and  separated  from  all  domestic  cares,  pleasures,  and  occupa¬ 
tions,  had  been  the  characteristic  of  the  ascetics  and  virgins  even  from 
the  time  of  the  apostles ;  but  the  monastic  or  solitary  life  was  first  exhib¬ 
ited  on  a  broad  scale  by  Anthony  and  his  disciples  in  Egypt,  at  the  latter 
end  of  the  third,  and  the  beginning  of  the  fourth  century.”'^ 

“In  the  present  age,”  he  adds,  “it  is,  perhaps,  difficult  to  appreciate 
justly  the  religious  character  of  ascetic  religion  in  the  early  Church.”  * 
This  is,  alas  !  but  too  true.  Protestantism  never  had  any  relish  for  this 
life  of  prayer  and  self-denial ;  these  are  not  palatable  to  our  modern 
religionists’  dainty  taste. 

The  historian’s  admission,  in  regard  to  the  antiquity  of  the  ascetics 
and  sacred  virgins,  was  too  much  for  his  Right  Reverend  editor ;  who, 

1  For  full  evidence  on  this  subject,  see  Palma,  vol.  i,  P.  II,  p.  94,  et  seq.^  and  p.  103,  et  seq. 

2  Pag-e  47. 

3  Palma  treats  the  whole  subject  with  his  usual  learning  and  ability,  vol.  ii,  P.  I,  p.  104,  et  seq, 

4  Page  49.  6  'bid. 

G  2 


30 


CHURCH  HISTORY 


breathing  a  more  anti-popery  atmosphere,  is  not  yet  prepared  to  go  as 
far  Romeward,  even  as  Professor  Palmer.  In  a  note,  he  very  sagely 
remarks,  that  “these  (ascetics  and  virgins)  certainly  did  not  exist  as 
distinct  classes  before  the  end  of  the  second  century ;  nor  even  then  in 
anything  resembling  the  form  of  monkery.”  The  end  of  the  second 
century  is  a  very  respectable  antiquity  of  itself:  but  would  not  the 
avowed  fact  of  their  general  existence  in  the  second  century,  argue  a 
more  ancient  ori^n  ?  What  would  the  bishop  think  of  the  argument, 
that  because  we  find  mention  of  the  order  of  bishops  in  writers  of  the 
second  century,  therefore  this  order  had  certainly  no  previous  existence  ? 
Yet  his  is  precisely  parallel. 

Both  Tertullian  ‘  and  St.  Cyprian^  wrote  treatises  expressly  on  the 
duties  of  sacred  virgins  ;  which  clearly  proves  their  recognized  exist¬ 
ence,  as  a  distinct  class  in  the  second  and  third  centuries,  and  also 
establishes  their  prior  origin.  As  to  the  “  form  of  monkery,”  we  will 
not  dispute  about  forms,  so  the  substance  be  admitted.  In  the  first 
century,  the  Therapeutes  of  the  East  were  a  species  of  monks  ;  and  the 
order  of  sacred  virgins  existed  from  the  days  of  the  apostles.  We  read 
in  the  Acts,  that  Philip  the  Evangelist  “had  four  daughters  vii-gins,  who 
did  prophesy ;”  ®  and  the  seventh  chapter  of  St.  Paul’s  first  Epistle  to 
the  Corinthians  clearly  implies  the  apostolical  origin  of  holy  virgins  and 
colibataries.  Carnal-minded  Protestantism  can  not  understand  or  appre¬ 
ciate  all  this.  In  our  modern  systems  of  religion,  matrimony  seems  to 
constitute  the  summum  honum,  and  virginity  is  almost  as  much  despised 
as  it  was  among  the  heathens  of  old  !  Who  will  venture  to  deny  this  ? 

Among  the  many  important  omissions  of  our  author  under  this  epoch, 
we  have  time  to  mention  only  one.  He  says  nothing  of  the  attempt 
made  by  Julian,  the  apostate,  to  rebuild  the  temple  of  Jerusalem,  with 
the  avowed  purpose  of  falsifying  the  predictions  of  Christ';  nor  of  the 
miraculous  manner  in  which  that  attempt  was  frustrated  by  God.  Yet 
this  is  perhaps  one  of  the  most  triumphant  proofs  of  the  divinity  of  the 
Christian  Religion,  and  it  should  not  therefore  have  been  omitted,  even 
in  a  compendious  history.  The  fact  is  testified  to^  by  all  Cliristian 
antiquity ;  and  it  is  vouched  for  even  by  the  cotemporary  pagan 
historian,  Ammianus  Marcellinus,  a  great  admirer  of  Julian. 

The  errors  and  misstatements  of  our  author  and  of  his  editor  are  here 
so  numerous,  that  we  scarcely  have  space  to  advert  even  transiemly  to 
the  principal  of  them.  On  pages  43,  44,  we  have  no  less  than  three  notes, 
in  which  Bishop  Whittingham  corrects  true  statements  made  in  the  text. 
Mr.  Palmer  calls  Nestorius  “a  vain  and  arrogant  man,”  and  gives  a 
correct  account  of  his  heresy.  The  episcopal  commentator  here  remarks: 
“Nestorius  hardly  has  justice  done  him  by  this  statement  .  .  .  tlie  most 
accurate  investigations  leave  little  room  for  doubt,  that  he  did  not  teach 
the  heretical  doctrine  afterwards  put  forth  by  some  who  took  part  in  the 


1  De  Velandis  Virginibus. 
3  Acts,  xxi,  9. 


2  De  Virginibus 

4  Apud  Palma,  vol  i,  P.  II,  p.  23,  et  seq. 


THE  EARLY  AGES 


31 


dispute,  and  bore  his  name.”  Ah  indeed  !  So  the  Protestant  bishop  of 
Maryland  has,  “  by  his  more  accurate  investigations,”  ascertained  more 
than  had  been  found  out  by  the  two  hundred  bishops  who  composed  the 
council  of  Ephesus,  and  by  nearly  all  the  historians  of  antiquity  !  We 
give  him  credit  for  his  wonderful  discovery ;  but  until  he  gives  us  some 
facts  on  the  subject,  we  must  be  pardoned  for  believing  that  Nestorius 
was  a  heretic.* 

The  second  correction  to  which  we  just  alluded,  is  the  substitution  in 
the  note  of  the  word  testimony,  for  that  of  the  decision  of  the  council  of 
Ephesus  against  Nestorius.  The  bishop  is  evidently  alarmed  at  the 
spectre  of  church  authority  deciding  on  controversy.  Feeling  that  his 
own  church  is  powerless,  even  to  silence  a  recreant  parson,  he  would  fain 
snatch  from  the  ancient  Church  also  her  spiritual  armor  of  authoritative 
teaching. 

The  third  correction  contains  a  libel  on  St.  Cyril  of  Alexandria,  who, 
in  the  text,  had  been  praised  as  having  had  “  the  honor  of  being  the 
principal  opponent  of  this  heresy”  (the  Nestorian).  The  editor  adds: 
“but  not  without  sullying  himself  with  the  use  of  very  unbefitting 
means.”  Here  also  he  flatly  contradicts  all  Christian  antiquity. 

Again,  the  historian  speaks  of  St.  Patrick  and  St.  Palladius,  the 
respective  apostles  of  Ireland  and  Scotland,  though  singularly  enough  he 
makes  them  both  the  apostles  of  Ireland ;  and  we  are  sure  the  Irish  will 
thank  him  for  the  discovery  ! 

“  The  apostolical  labors  of  St.  Patrick  were  rewarded  by  the  conversion 
of  the  Irish  nation  to  Christianity.  Palladius  had  been  previously  or¬ 
dained  to  the  same  mission  by  Coelestinus,  bishop  of  Rome,”  <fec.^ 

Not  at  all,  says  the  episcopal  editor  : 

“  This  is  extremely  doubtful,  or  rather  almost  certainly  untrue.  That 
both  Palladius  and  Patrick  preached  in  Ireland,  early  in  the  fifth  century, 
is  certain.” 

If  Palladius  visited  Ireland,  he  remained  but  a  short  time.^  But  the 
bisliop  further  observes: 

“  That  neither  of  them  had  any  direct  communication  with  Rome  is  in 
the  highest  degree  probable.” 

And  yet  St.  Prosper,  a  cotemporary  historian,  testifies  in  his  chronicle, 
that  Palladius  was  ordained  by  Pope  Coelestine  for  the  Scotch."*  Which 
are  we  to  believe?  All  the  ancient  authors  of  St.  Patrick’s  life  ao-ree  in 

O 

stating,  that  after  his  second  captivity,  he  traveled  through  France  and 

1  Another  instance  of  the  sympathy  of  errorists  for  one  another,  is  furnished  by  the  great  parade 
lately  made  over  a  Nestorian  bishop,  whom  the  Rev.  Justus  Perkins  brought  to  this  country  as  a 
kind  of  show  !  2  P .  45. 

3  We  are  aware  that  the  words  Scoti  and  Hiherni  were  interchangeable  terms  for  several  centuries: 
yet  St  Patrick,  in  his  confessions,  clearly  distinguishes  between  them,  and  so  do  other  ancient 
documents.  The  learned  Alban  Butler  thinks  that  the  Scots  first  settled  in  Ireland,  and  then 
removed  to  Scotland.  See  Butler's  lives  of  Saints,  17th  March,  note.  Dublin  edition. 

4  ‘-Ad  Scotos  in  Christum  credentes  ordinatur  a  Papa  Coelestino  Palladius,  et  primus  episcopufl 
mittitur.”  —  Chrontcon.  ad  annum  431.  The  Chronicle  begins  with  Adam,  and  comes  down  to  the 
)  ear  455.  and  it  is  very  good  authority,  especially  against  a  mere  assertion. 


82 


C  II  U  11  C  II  II  I  S  T  U  11  Y  . 


Italy,  visited  Rome,  and  received  his  mission,  together  with  the  apostolical 
benediction,  from  Pope  Coelestine,  who  died  A.  D.  432. ‘ 

Speaking  of  the  ancient  British  and  Irish  churches,  Mr.  Palmer  makes 
this  reckless  assertion  : 

The  ancient  churches  of  the  Britons  which,  still  contirtued,  as  well  as 
the  Irish  churches,  were  not  subject  to  the  jurisdiction  of  the  bishops  of 
Rome,  nor  was  the  Anglo-Saxon  Church  for  many  centuries,  though 
much  reverence  was  felt  for  the  ancient  and  celebrated  Church  of 
Rome,  and  much  assistance  derived  from  it  in  the  earlier  stages  of  their 
existence.”^ 

And  again  : 

“  The  ancient  British  and  Irish  churches,  in  the  sixth  and  seventh 
centuries,  were  treated  as  schismatics  by  the  Roman  church  in  conse¬ 
quence  of  their  adherence  to  their  ancient  customs,  and  for  not  sub¬ 
mitting  to  the  authority  of  the  papal  see  ;  but  they  were  acknowledged  as 
Christians  by  many  churches.”^ 

And  to  make  bad  worse,  the  bishop  of  Maryland  adds  this  note  about 
the  “ancient  customs  :  ” 

“For  which  they  truly  pleaded  apostolical  warrant,  in  the  practice  of 
St.  John,  derived  to  them  through  the  churches  o^f  Gaul.” 

It  would  require  too  much  space  to  refute  all  the  misstatements 
contained  in  these  remarkable  passages,  which  are  selected  almost  at 
random,  from  many  more  of  a  similar  kind.  We  will  barel}''  enumerate 
them,  and  say  a  word  or  tAvo  on  each. 

1.  The  ancient  British  and  Irish  churches  were  subject  to  the  jurisdic¬ 
tion  of  the  Roman  pontiffs,  as  a  host  of  facts  clearly  show ;  and  we 

'challenge  proof  to  the  contrary.  In  both,  Christianity  and  its  first 
teachers  had  come  from  Rome.  At  the  close  of  the  second  century.  Pope 
Eleutherius  (about  180)  had  sent  to  England  Fugatius  and  Damianus,  at 
the  instance  of  King  .Lucius.  This  is  attested  by  all  the  older  British 
writers. Whether,  previously  to  this  time,  the  gospel  was  preached, 
at  least  to  any  extent,  in  England  or  not,  is  doubtful ;  but  if  it  was,  it 
had  made  but  few  disciples.*  But  for  Rome,  England  would  perhaps 
never  have  been  converted.  Besides,  the  primacy  apart,  England  was  in 
the  western  patriarchate,  and  under  this  title,  like  the  other  western 
churches,  was  subject  to  the  jurisdiction  of  the  Roman  Pontiffs,  who 
were  also  avowedly  patriarchs  of  the  west. 

2.  That  the  Irish  churches  were  ever  treated  as  schismatical  by  Rome, 
is  an  assertion  unsustained  by  proof.  The  Irish  church  was  never  for 
a  moment  stained  with  either  heresy  or  schism. 

1  So  says  Probug,  who  wrote  a  life  of  the  saint,  according  to  Bollandus,  some  time  in  the  seventh 
century.  The  Cistercian  monk,  Jocelin,  who  also  wrote  his  life  in  the  twelfth  century,  and  who 
refers  to  four  different  lives  of  the  saint  written  before  his  time,  relates  the  same  fact.  See  Butler’s 
Lives  of  Saints,  17th  March,  Dublin  edition.  Surely  all  this  testimony  should  outweigh  the  bare 
assertion  of  Bishop  Whittinghain.  2  P.  46.  3  P  67. 

4  For  facts  see  Lingard  —  “  Antiquities  of  the  Anglo-Saxon  church,”  p.  18,  American  edition. 

5  Idem,  p.  17,  note. 


THE  EARLY  AGES. 


33 


3.  The  British  clmrclies  never  refused  to  admit  the  authority  of  the 
papal  see.  The  controversy  did  not  turn  on  this  point.  They  merely 
refused  to  submit  to  St.  Augustine,  because  he  could  not  sanction  their 
customs,  and  would  not  brook  their  notorious  immorality,  attested  by  all 
cotemporary  writers.  The  testimony  of  Gildas,  an  historian  of  the  time, 
clearly  proves  that  they  acknowledged  the  authority  of  the  Roman  Pontiffs, 
even  after  that  authority  had  proscribed  them  :  for  their  clergy  still  went 
to  Rome  to  obtain  ecclesiastical  preferment.’ 

4.  The  British  churches  did  not  truly  plead  apostolical  warrant  for 
their  customs,”  as  Bishop  Whittingham  says  ;  nor  did  they  plead  itat  all. 
They  merely  alleged  the  example  of  St.  Columban  and  of  their  fore¬ 
fathers.  St.  John  and  the  churches  of  Gaul  had  nothing  to  do  with 
the  controversy.  It  is  ascertained  that  the  British  churches  were  not 
quartodecimans,  or  did  not  persist  in  keeping  Easter  with  the  Jews.  They 
merely  refused  to  adopt  the  improvement  in  the  calendar  introduced  by 
Dionysius  Exiguus,  and  already  adopted  by  Rome  and  the  whole  Church. 
The  venerable  Bede  tells  us,  that  their  remoteness  from  the  rest  of  the 
world  was  the  reason  of  their  ignorant  adherence  to  an  erroneous  cal¬ 
endar.^  By  the  way,  as  Bishop  Whittingham  so  greatly  admires  those 
**  ancient  customs,”  why  does  he  not  adopt  them,  and  shave  his  own 
head  in  the  form  of  a  crescent  ?  In  this  strange  plight,  and  keeping 
Easter  about  a  month  sooner  or  later  than  his  brethren,  he  would  certainly 
excite  admiration  !  He  would  be  a  glorious  reformer,  “ /rwZy  pleading 
apostolical  warrant!” 

5.  We  would  much  like  to  see  any  evidence  going  to  prove,  that  after 
their  separation  from  Rome,  ”  the  British  churches  were  acknowledged 
as  Christians  by  many  churches.”  We  doubt  whether  there  is  one  fact 
in  history  to  warrant  this  assertion. 

6.  That  the  Anglo-Saxon  church  acknowledged  the  jurisdiction  of  the 
Roman  Pontiffs,  from  the  time  of  St.  Augustine  to  the  reformation,  could 
be  proved  by  a  whole  volume  of  evidence.  But  our  space  will  not  allow 
us  even  to  touch  on  this  subject.^ 

Professor  Palmer  gives  us  some  very  fine  sketches  of  St.  Anthony,  of 
St.  Pachomius,  of  St.  Martin,  and  of  many  other  principal  saints  and 
illustrious  ornaments  of  this  period.**  They  are  judicious,  well  selected, 
and  edifying  ;  written  too  in  the  right  spirit.  Ho  even  speaks  with  great 
praise  of  that  remarkable  man,  St.  Simeon  Stylites,®  who  passed  many 
years  of  his  life  on  the  top  of  a  column,  in  order  to  escape  the  impor¬ 
tunity  of  the  multitudes  who  flocked  to  him  for  his  blessing.  He  tells 
us  how  this  holy  man  was  venerated  by  emperors,  empresses,  and  bishops; 
and  how  he  converted  thousand  of  pagans  to  the  Christian  faith.  He  gives 
this  opinion  of  his  character  : 

1  This  whole  subject  is  ably  handled  by  Lingard.  Ibid.  p.  41,  et  seq. 

2  “  Utpote  qui  longe  extra  orbem  positis  nemo  synodalia  Paschalis  observantiae  decreta  porrexe- 
rat.”  —  lib.  iii,  c.  4. 

8  For  facts  and  authorities  on  this  interesting  subject,  we  refer  the  reader  to  Dr.  Kenrick  on  the 
Primacy  Part  I,  ch.  xvi;  al.so  to  the  late  eloquent  work  of  Dr.  Ives  —  ‘‘  Trials  of  a  mind,”  &c. 

4  P.  44,  ft.  seq.  6  P.  65,  56. 


6 


34 


CHURCH  HISTORY. 


“An  example  of  want  of  moderation  in  self-denial  and  mortification 
is  frequently  pointed  out  in  the  case  of  St.  Simeon  Stylites,  who  lived  in 
the  fifth  century.  Yet  it  is  impossible  not  to  admit  that,  with  some 
excesses  in  these  respects,  there  was  much  to  admire  and  venerate  in  his 
character.”  ‘ 

This  eulogy  did  not  suit  the  taste  of  the  Episcopal  editor.  He  says, 
in  a  note  : 

“The  excesses  of  Simeon  were  more  reprehensible  than  mere  ‘want 
of  moderation  in  self-denial  and  mortification.’  His  multiplied  bowings, 
protracted  watchings,  constrained  postures,  and  pillar-isolation,  belong 
to  a  low  class  of  superstition,  and  furnish  a  melancholy  proof  of  the 
degenerating  tendencies  of  the  age.” 

The  Protestant  bishop  is  far  too  enlightened  to  relish  these  same 
“multiplied  bowings  and  protracted  watchings;”  as  to  the  “constrained 
postures,”  his  very  soul  abhors  them.  Only  think  of  the  “degenerating 
tendencies  of  the  age  !”  Rank  popery  perched  on  a  pillar,  surrounded 
by  admiring  thousands,  in  the  middle  of  the  fifth  century  !  It  is  really 
too  bad  !  It  is  absolutely  shocking  to  the  nerves  of  a  delicate  Protestant 
bishop,  even  to  think  of  those  austerities  !  To  be  more  serious  :  the 
example  of  St.  Simeon  is  extraordinary,  and  almost  single  in  Churcli 
*  History.  It  belongs  to  the  class  of  things  admirable,  but  not  imitable. 
In  those  warm  Eastern  climates,  it  was  not  unusual,  at  that  day,  for 
persons  to  pass  considerable  portions  of  their  lives  in  the  open  air,  or  on 
the  terraces  of  their  houses.  The  manner  of  life  of  St.  Simeon  was, 
then,  after  all,  not  so  very  great  a  departure  from  the  usage  of  his  time 
and  country,  as  might  appear  at  first  sight.  We  make  these  remarks, 
merely  to  steady  the  bishop’s  nerves. 

Dr.  Palmer  devotes  an  entire  chapter^  to  what  he  styles  “the  rise 
of  abuses  and  corruptions.”  This  chapter  is  a  tissue  of  unfounded 
assertion  and  of  special  pleading,  from  beginning  to  end.  It  is  bad 
enough  already ;  and  hence  the  bishop  makes  no  notes.  It  would  far 
transcend  our  limits  to  enter  into  a  detailed  refutation  of  its  glaring 
perversion  of  facts  and  evidence.  On  one  page  alone,  we  have  marked 
no  le^s  than  four  false  statements,  for  the  refutation  of  each  of  which, 
however,  a  separate  paper  would  be  necessary.  We  will  offer  only  a 
few  general  remarks. 

The  gist  of  the  reasoning  consists  in  the  assertion,  that  many  doctrines, 
—  invocation  of  saints,  veneration  for  relics,  purgatory,  and  others, — 
led  to  great  abuses  ;  and  in  the  inference  thence  drawn,  that  they  were, 
therefore,  rightly  repudiated  by  Protestants.  The  things  were  good  in 
their  origin  and  harmless  in  themselves  ;  they  were  subsequently  abused  ; 
therefore,  they  were  justly  abolished.  Under  this  leveling  reasoning, 
everything  in  Christianity,  and  the  bible  itself  would  be  swept  away. 
He  says : 

“  Could  the  pious  fathers  of  the  fourth  century,  who  in  their  orations 


1  P  .  55. 


2  Chap.  X.  p.  68,  et  seq. 


THE  EARLY  AGES. 


35 


apostrophized  the  departed  saints  and  martyrs,  ‘and  called  for  their 
prayers  to  God,  have  foreseen  the  abuses  to  which  this  practice  was  to 
lead,  .  .  .  they  would  carefull}'-  have  avoided  the  introduction  of 

a  practice  so  dangerous  to  true  religion.”  • 

Could  they  now  rise  from  their  graves,  how  they  would  rebuke 
those,  who,  under  pretence  of  promoting  true  religion,  have  mutilated  or 
rejected  the  practices  which  they  so  much  cherished  !  How  they  would 
be  charmed  too  with  the  motley  appearance  of  modern  Protestantism  ! 
According  to  our  Oxford  divine,  even  the  Church,  sustained,  as  he 
delights  to  repeat  it  was,  by  the  promises  of  Christ,  was  yet  wanting 
in  knowledge  on  this  subject : 

“  The  Church  has  not  always  been  gifted  with  a  spirit  of  wisdom  and 
foreknowledge,  to  discern  the  future  abuses  of  opinions  and  practices, 
which  it  originally  permitted  without  reproof.”  ‘ 

For  our  parts,  we  greatly  prefer  the  wisdom  of  the  Church,  which 
Christ  promised  to  protect  from  error,  and  which  he  commanded  us  to 
hear,  to  the  new,-fangled  and  mystical  notions  of  Oxford.  It  may  be 
childish  simplicity  in  us  ;  but  if  we  err  in  hearing  the  Church,  we  err  by 
the  express  command  of  Christ ! 

Professor  Palmer  will  not  admit,  that  either  the  seventh  or  the 
eighth  council  was  cecumenical,  or  general.  The  former  condemned  the 
Iconoclasts,  and  maintained  the  lawfulness  of  images  in  churches ;  the 
latter  condemned  the  intruder  Photius,  that  ambitious  man  who  had  been 
consecrated  bishop  of  Constantinople  in  six  days  from  being  a  mere 
layman,  while  St.  Ignatius,  the  lawful  bishop,  was  still  living.  He  tells 
us,  that  the  former  was  rejected  by  the  Western,  and  the  latter  by  the 
Eastern  church.^  Neither  of  these*  assertions  is  true,  as  we  could  easily 
accumulate  evidence  to  prove,  did  our  limits  permit.  The  Roman 
Pontiffs  certainly  sanctioned  the  canons  of  the  seventh  council,  or  the 
secpnd  of  Nice,  held  in  787.  And  with  them  the  bulk  of  the  Western 
bishops  certainly  agreed,  at  least  after  a  brief  hesitancy.  The  fathers 
of  the  council  at  Frankfort,  in  791,  merely  labored  under  an  error  of 
fact,  founded  on  a  false  version  of  the  Nicene  canons  :  this  error  was 
subsequently  removed,  and  the  Western  bishops  then  gave  in  their 
adhesion. 

What  the  bishops  of  the  Greek  church  may  have  thought  on  the 
subject  after  their  final  rupture  with  Rome  under  Michael  Cerularius,  is 
not  important :  but  during  the  two  centuries  intervening  between  the 
liolding  of  the  eighth  general  council  and  this  final  schism,  they  had 
certainly,  at  least  a  majority  of  them,  received  its  decisions.^  There  is, 
in  a  word,  as  much  evidence  to  prove  that  these  councils  are  oecumeni¬ 
cal,  as  there  is  to  prove  the  same  of  the  six  preceding  ones,  which  our 

1  Pages  68.  69.  •  2  Page  47. 

3  See  Palma,  toI.  ii,  part  ii,  p.  15,  et  seq.,  and  p.  26,  et  seq  ,  and  ibid,  p.  89,  et  seq.^  and  p.  114,  tt 
»eg.,  for  full  proofs  on  the  subject  of  the  seventh  and  eighth  general  councils. 


4 


36 


CHURCH  HISTORY. 


author  receives.  Objections  had  been  made  to  all  of  them  for  a  time  ; 
but  they  were  all  finally  sanctioned  by  the  body  of  bishops. 

We  have  now  finished  our  remarks  on  this  epoch  ;  and  witli  them  we 
also  close  this  paper.  We.  have  not  noticed  one-half  the  passages  we 
had  marked  for  animadversion  ;  but  the  few  specimens  we  have  been 
able  to  give  will  serve  to  show  the  general  character  for  accuracy  of  Mr. 
Palmer’s  work,  as  also  that  of  its  Right  Reverend  editor.  Our  readers 
will  probably  concur  with  us  in  opinion,  that  Bishop  Whittingham  might 
have  been  much  better  employed,  than  in  writing  notes  on  Palmer’s 
(J!hurch  History.  He  might,  for  instance,  have  devoted  his  leisure 
moments  to  an  answer  to  Archbishop  Kenrick’s  book  on  the  Primacy. 


II. 


CHURCH  HISTORY.’*' 


ARTICLE  II. - THE  MIDDLE  AGES. 


A  diflfereot  Division  suggested  —  Triumphs  of  the  Church  over  Barbarism  —  Missionaries  sent  bf 
Rome  —  The  Ages  of  Faith  —  Auricular  Confession  —  Testimonies  of  Tertulliau  and  St.  Cyprian 
—  Nectarius  and  the  Penitentiary  —  Puseyite  View  of  the  Holy  Eucharist — Paschasius  Radbert 
and  Berengarius  —  Temporal  Authority  of  the  Pope  and  Bishops  —  Decretals  of  Isidore  —  Prerog¬ 
atives  of  the  Roman  Pontiffs  —  Pope  Julius  I.  —  Greek  Schism  —  Order  of  Pre-eminence  —  Michael 
Cerularius  —  Shaving  the  Beard  —  The  Nicene  Canons  — Edifying  Incident  of  St.  Anselm  — Modern 
Anglican  Parsons  —  Vision  of  “  Roman  attempts  at  Usurpation”  —  Have  the  Promises  of  Christ 
failed  ?  —  The  Roman  Primacy  acknowledged  by  the  early  Greek  Church  —  And  at  Councils  of  Lyons 
and  Florence  —  When  was  the  Doctrine  of  the  Primacy  Defined?  —  Purgatory  —  Transubstan- 
tiation  —  Indulgences — Protestant  Indulgences  —  Penitential  Works  —  Repudiating  the  Debt  — 
The  Rosary  —  “The  Pure  and  Holy  One”  —  Temporal  power  of  the  Popes  —  Its  intluence  on 
Civilization. 


In  our  first  paper,  we  extended  our  review  of  Mr.  Palmer’s  work  to 
the  beginning  of  the  third  epoch  of  Church  History,  according  to  his 
division.  In  the  present,  we  intend  to  offer  some  remarks  upon  the  third 
and  fourth  epochs,  which  bring  the  history  down  to  the  reformation. 
To  the  period  which  has  elapsed  since  this  eventful  revolution,  we  will 
have  to  devote  a  separate  paper,  which  will  be  the  last  of  this  series.  ' 

We  have  already  intimated  that  we  did  not  approve  of  the  idea  of  our 
author,  which  makes  the  year  680,  —  the  date  of  the  seventh  general 
council,  against  the  Monothelites, — a  distinct  era  in  Church  History,  on 
the  ground  that  this  was  the  last  general  council.  We  have  briefly  shown 
how  unfounded  is  this  apumption.  We  would  have  greatly  preferred 
a  less  whimsical,  and  more  rational  division,  and  one,  at  the  same  time, 
more  conformable  to  the  great  vicissitudes  of  ecclesiastical  history.  We 
would  have  divided  the  period  which  elapsed  from  the  accession  of  Con¬ 
stantine  the  Great,  as  sole  emperor,  in  the  year  324,  to  the  reformation 
in  1517,  into  four,  instead  of  three  epochs. 

The  first  would  have  terminated  with  the  fall  of  the  Roman  empire  in 
the  west,  in  the  year  476, — an  event  of  sufficient  importance,  surely, 
both  in  general  and  ecclesiastical  history,  to  form  a  distinct  epoch.  Tliis 
period,  embracing  one  hundred  and  fifty-two  years,  witnessed  the  rise, 
progress,  and  condemnation  of  the  four  great  heresies  against  the  doctrines 
of  the  Holy  Trinity  and  of  the  Incarnation  ;  as  well  as  the  holding  of  tlie 
first  four  general  councils,  which  St.  Gregory  1.  and  the  ancient  fathers 

*  A  Compendious  Ecclesiastical  History^  from  the  earliest  period  to  the  present  tune.  Bv 
thu  Rev.  William  Palmer,  M.  A.,  of  Worcester  Collej,^*,  Oxford.  With  a  Preface  and 
Notes,  by  an  American  Editor.  New  York,  1811,  republished.  1  vol.  l2mo.  pp. 228. 

H  37 


38 


CHURCH  HISTORY. 


revered  as  they  did  the  four  gospels.  The  second  epoch  would  have 
closed  with  the  crowning  of  Charlemagne,  in  the  beginning  of  the  ninth 
century,  and  it  would  have  traced  the  first  great  struggle  of  the  Church 
with  barbarism,  and  her  first  successful  efforts  for  the  conversion  of  the 
northern  nations.  The  third  epoch  would  have  closed  with  the  consum¬ 
mation  of  the  Greek  schism  under  Michael  Cerularius,  in  1054  ;  and  it 
would  have  unfolded  the  triumphant  termination  of  the  struggles  and 
efforts  just  alluded  to.  Finally,  the  fourth  epoch  would  have  terminated 
with  the  reformaiion  ;  and  it  would  have  coincided  with  that  of  our 
author.  This  division  seems  to  us  more  in  conformity  with  the  great 
phases  of  Church  History.  We  will,  however,  continue  our  remarks  on 
the  division  into  epochs  adopted  by  our  Oxford  historian. 


EPOCH  III,  A.  D  ,680 — 1054.* 

This  was,  in  a  special  manner,  the  period  of  the  triumph  of  the  Church 
over  barbarism,  in  the  conversion  of  the  northern  nations.  Mr.  Palmer 
gives  us^  a  very  brief  and  imperfect  summary  of  facts  on  this  subject ; 
but  he.  almost  forgets  to  inform  us,  that  the  credit  of  those  glorious  triumphs 
is  mainly  due  to  the  Roman  Pontiffs.  He  merely  tells  us  incidentally, 
that  “  at  length  Boniface  went  to  Rome,  by  desire  of  Pope  Gregory  II., 
who  ordained  him  bishop  for  the  mission  among  the  heathens  east  of  the 
Rhine. He  might  have  told  us  the  same  of  all  the  great  apostles  of 
the  north,  who  were  either  sent  directly  by  Rome,  or  who  at  least 
undertook  their  apostolical  labors  with  the  approval  of  the  Roman  Pontiffs. 
Even  M.  D’Aubignb,  the  unscrupulous  Protestant  historian  of  the  refor¬ 
mation,  admits  as  much.  He  informs  us,  that  “  the  Germans  had  received 
from  Rome  that  element  of  modern  civilization,  the  faith.  Instruction, 
legislation;  all,  save  their  courage  and  their  weapons,  had  come  to  them 
from  the  sacerdotal  city.  Strong  ties  had,  from  that  time,  attached 
Germany  to  the  papacy. 

We  shall  soon  have  occasion  to  see,  in  what  language  our  author 
speaks  of  the  abuses  and  corruptions  of  this  period,  in  doing  which  he 
but  re-echoes  the  stereotyped  charges  of  prejudiced  and  partisan  histo¬ 
rians.  As  an  offset  to  these  accusations,  and  at  the  same  time  as  a 
specimen  of  the  admirable  consistency  of  Puseyism,  we  wilV  first  give 
some  of  his  admissions  on  the  faith  and  piety  of  those  much  abused 
ages.  In  regard  to  the  faith  then  prevalent  he  speaks  thus  : 

“The  same  great  truths  of  religion  were  universally  adopted;  the 
oame  Scriptures  were  diligently  studied  by  all  whoAiad  the  means  of 
doing  so,  —  for  in  those  days,  before  the  invention  of  printing,  when  all 
books  were  transcribed  by  manual  labor,  they  were  both  scarce  and 

•  \ 

1  From  p.  76  —  106.  2  P.  75,  et.  seq.  ,  3  p.  89. 

4  '•  History  of  the  Great  Reformation,”  &c.,  in  three  Toliimcs,  12mo.  vol.  1,  pp.  78,  79.  Edit 
Carter,  New  York,  1843  >  ee  , 


k 


THE  MIHHLE  AGES. 


39 


expensive  ;  and  an  universal  appeal  was  made  to  the  sentiments  of  the 
ancient  fathers  and  councils  in  the  interpretation  of  the  Bible.”' 

In  the  very  chapter  in  which  lie  treats  of  the  “abuses  and  supersti¬ 
tions”  of  the  period  under  consideration,  he  has  the  following  admission 
in  regard  to  the  state  of  religion  at  that  time  : 

“  And  if,  as  .we  have  reason  to  believe,  a  large  portion  of  the  community 
were  [was?)  accustomed  to  receive  the  holy  eucharist  three  times  a  year, 
we  may  trust  that  the  state  of  religion  was  in  those  ages  not  so  bad 
as  it  has  been  sometimes  represented ;  and  the  present  age,  with  all  its 
advantages  of  civilization,  peace,  and  education,  would  perhaps  scarcely 
be  able  to  prove  its  greater  attention  to  known  duties,  or  its  more  con¬ 
scientious  obedience  to  the  impulse  of  conscience.”^ 

From  the  following  extract  it  would  clearly  appear,  that,  even  in  his 
opinion,  those  ages  of  faith  were  far  ahead  of  the  present  enlightened 
times  in  piety  and  devotion  : — 

“■  Nor  has  there  ever  been  a  period  in  the  history  of  the  Church,  when 
the  spirit  of  religion,  where  it  existed,  was  more  ardent  and  earnest. 
The  religion  of  those  times  was  less  learned,  less  accomplished  (!)  less 
free  from  superstition  ( 1),  than  that  of  earlier  ages ;  but  it  can  scarcely 
be  said  to  have  been  less  zealous,  less  productive  of  good  works.  Its 
characteristics  were  the  deepest  humility,  renouncement  of  self,  denial 
of  the  passions  and  even  of  the  enjoyments  and  pleasures  of  the  world ; 
boundless  charity  to  the  poor ;  the  foundation  of  churches,  schools,  and 
religious  houses ;  diligent  study  of  the  Scriptures,  singing  of  psalms, 
and  much  prayer.  We  see  not  merely  one  or  two,  but  hundreds  of  men 
forsaking  all  their  earthly  prospects,  the  resorts  of  their  youth,  and  the 
paths  of  ambition,  to  devote  themselves  to  the  conversion  of  the  heathen. 
We  see  them  desiring  and  rejoicing  to  die  for  Christ;  and,  by  their 
patience,  piety,  and  wisdom,  bringing  multitudes  of  heathens  into  the 
way  of  salvation.  We  see  many  of  the  most  powerful  monarchs  engaged 
in  all  the  exercises  of  continual  devotion  and  charity,  or  descending  from 
the  summit  of  earthly  grandeur  to  spend  the  remainder  of  their  days  in 
penitence  and  prayer.  However  sad  may  have  been  the  calamities  of  the 
Church,  and  however  great  the  faults  of  Christians,  yet  when  we  see 
such  things  as  these,  we  aannot  refrain  from  the  conviction  that  the  Spirit 
of  God  was  still  influencing  the  hearts  of  many  people  ;  nor  fail  to  per¬ 
ceive  that  the  Lord  was  still,  according  to  his  promise,  always  with  his 
Church.”' 

The  tree  which  produced  such  fruits  as  these  must  have  been  good, 
according  to  the  rule  of  our  Lord  :  “  By  their  fruits  ye  shall  know  them.” 

Our  historian  confirms  the  truth  of  this  admirable  picture,  by  appro¬ 
priate  and  well  written  sketches  of  the  lives  of  many  illustrious  men  who 
flourished  during  the  period  in  question  :  of  the  Venerable  Bede,  of 
Charlemagne,  of  St.  Boniface,  of  the  martyrs  of  Amorium  at  Bagdat,  of 
Alfred  the  Great,  and  of  the  anchorite,  St.  Nilus.''  These  examples  are 
so  well  exhibited,  that  we  are  resti-ained  only  by  our  narrow  limits  from 
making  our  readers  sharers  in  the  unmingled  pleasure  we  had  in  perusing 
them. 

All  that  surprises  us,  is,  that  the  Protestant  bishop  of  Maryland  did 

1  Page  78.  2  Page  101.  3  Page  85  4  Pp  85—100. 


40 


CHURCH  HISTORY. 


not  endeavor  to  mar  the  beauty  of  tliese  sketches  by  the  introduction  of 
a  few  of  his  little  notes  !  Perhaps  the  good  bishop  deemed  this  a  work 
of  supererogation,  since  Mr.  Palmer,  here  as  elsewhere,  takes  special 
pains  to  spoil  his  own  work.  He  seizes  the  brush,  and  recklessly  bedaubs 
his  own  picture,  until  scarcely  a  lineament  of  its  former  beauty  remains. 

Confession  was  one  of  the  cherished  practices  of  medieval  piety.  It 
was  this  great  act  of  self  denial  which  prepared  the  sainted  men  and 
women  of  that  period  for  the  heroic  sacrifices  which  excite  the  admira¬ 
tion  of  our  historian  ;  —  sacrifices  to  which,  by  the  way,  cold  and  lifeless 
Protestantism  can  offer  no  parallel.  Let  us  see  how  our  Oxfordite 
discourses  on  this  subject: 

“  During  these  ages,  the  practice  of  private  confession  to  a  priest  was 
not  held  generally  to  be  a  matter  of  necessity.  We  have  already  seen 
this  custom  abolished  (as  a  pre-requisite  to  the  reception  of  the 
Eucharist)  in  the  east,  by  Nectarius,  patriarch  of  Constantinople,  in 
the  fourth  century,  and  by  the  majority  of  the  eastern  church.  It  was 
still  practiced  in  many  parts  of  the  west,  but  was  not  regarded  as  an 
essential  of  .  religion.  Bede  and  Alcuin  recommended  Christians  to 
confess  to  the  ministers  of  Cod  all  the  grievous  sins  which  they  could 
remember.  But  others,  as  we  learn  from  Alcuin  and  Haymo,  would 
not  confess  their  sins  to  the  priest,”  &c.‘ 

We  would  ask,  do  Protestant  preachers  now-a-days,  with  Bede  and 
Alcuin,  recommend  Christians  to  confess  to  the  ministers  of  God  all 
the  grievous  sins  which  they  can  remember  ?  ”  Or  rather,  do  they  not 
inveigh,  in  season  and  out  of  season,  against  this  whole  practice  of 
confession,  as  popish  and  encouraging  sin  ?  Do  not  the  parsons  of  the 
church  of  England  also  join  in  the  general  outcry,  although  their  own 
Prayer  Book,  in  the  order  for  the  visitation  of  the  sick,  strongly 
recommends  the  practice  ?  ^  Do  they  not  rather  belong  to  that  class  of 
negligent  Christians,  whom  Alcuin  and  Haymo  reproached,  because 
“  they  would  not  confess  their  sins  to  the  priest?”  Catholic  priests,  at  the 
present  day,  often  feel  it  to  be  their  duty  to  niake  a  similar  reproach  to 
negligent  Catholics,  which  fact,  instead  of  disproving  the  general  belief 
in  the  obligation  of  confession  among  them,  on  the  contrary,  clearly 
establishes  its  recognized  existence. 

The  whole  statement  just  given,  is,  in  fact,  untrue  and  unfair  from 
beginning  to  end. 

1.  It  is  not  true,  that  “during  these  ages,  the  practice  of  private 
confession  to  a  priest  was  not  held  generally  to  be  a  matter  of  necessity.” 
It  would  be  very  easy  to  accumulate  proof  to  establish  the  fact,  that, 
from  the  very  beginning  of  the  Church,  the  obligation  of  confession  to  a 
priesl  was  generally  recognized  among  Christians.  The  most  ancient 
fathers,  both  Greek  and  Latin,  bear  unequivocal  testimony,  not  only  to 
the  fact  that  confession  was  generally  practiced  in  the  ages  in  which  they 

1  P.  81. 

2  Tliis  part  of  the  Prayer  Book  has  been  expunged  from  the  American  editions.  It  was  toopopish 
to  suic  this  latitude ! 


THE  MIDDLE  AGES. 


41 


severally  wrote,  but  also  as  to  the  other  more  important  one,  that  its 
obligation  was  generally  believed  and  felt.  These  two  facts  are  indeed 
intimately  connected  with  each  other ;  for  it  would  have  been  utterly 
impossible  to  induce  men  generally  to  adopt  so  painful  an  observance, 
unless  they  had  been  previously  convinced  of  its  obligation  and  necessity. 

Out  of  a  host  of  evidence  bearing  on  the  subject,  our  space  will  allow 
us  to  refer  only  to  the  testimony  of  Tertullian  and  of  St.  Cyprian,  who 
wrote  in  the  second  and  third  centuries.  Both  of  these  fathers  aoree 

O 

with  all  the  others  who  have  written  on  the  subject,  in  enforcing  the 
obligation  of  exomologesis,  or  confession  to  a  priest.  Tertullian  says  of 
confession : 

“  Wherefore  confession,  {^exomologesis^ )  is  a  discipline  for  the  abasement 
and  humiliation  of  man,  enjoining  such  conversation  as  invites  mercy  : 
it  directs,  also,  even  in  the  manner  of  dress  and  food  —  to  lie  in  sack¬ 
cloth  and  ashes,  to  hide  the  body  in  mean  garments,  to  cast  down  the 
spirit  with  mourning,  to  exchange  for  severe  treatment  the  sins  which  he 
has  committed  ;  to  fall  down  before  the  priests  and  to  kneel  before  the  beloved 
of  God?  All  these  things  does  exomologesis  (confession)  perform,  that  it 
may  commend  repentance  ;  that  by  fearing  danger  it  may  honor  God ; 
that  by  itself  pronouncing  judgment  on  the  sinner,  it  may  act  in  the 
stead  of  God’s  wrath  ;  and  that,  by  means  of  temporal  affliction,  it  may, 
1  will  not  say  frustrate,  but  clear  off  the  eternal  penalties.” 

Speaking  of  those  who  defer  confession  through  shame,  he  says: 

They  “  are  more  mindful  of  their  shame  than  of  their  salvation,  like  those 
who,  having  contracted  some  shameful  malady,  avoid  making  their  physi¬ 
cians  acquainted  with  it,  and  so  perish  with  their  bashfulness.  It  is, 
forsooth,  intolerable  to  modesty,  to  make  satisfaction  to  their  offended 
Lord !  To  be  restored  to  the  health  which  they  have  wasted  away  ! 
Brave  art  thou,  in  thy  modesty,  truly,  bearing  an  open  front  in  sinning, 
and  a  bashful  one  in  praying  for  pardon  !  .  .  .  Verily,  the  concealment 
of  a  sin,  promises  a  great  benefit  to  our  modesty  !  Namely,  that  if  we 
withdraw  any  thing  from  the  knowledge  of  men,  we  shall  also,  of  course, 
conceal  it  from  God  !  And  is  it  thus,  then,  tliat  the  tlioughts  of  men 
and  the  knowledge  of  God  are  compared  ?  Is  it  better  to  be  damned  in 
secret,  than  to  be  absolved  openly  ? 

To  extinguish  this  false  shame  and  encourage  the  sinner  to  make  his 
confession,  he  alleges  the  following  strong  motive  ;  —  which  clearly  proves 
the  belief  universally  prevalent  in  the  second  century,  that  confession  of 
grievous  sin  was  necessary,  and  of  Divine  obligation: 

“If  thou  drawest  back  from  confession  [exomologesis),  consider  in 
thy  heart  that  hell-fire  which  confession  shall  quench  for  thee;'*  and  first 
imagine  to  thyself  the  greatness  of  this  punishment,  that  thou  mayest  not 
doubt  concerning  the  adoption  of  the  remedy.  .  .  When,  therefore,  thou 
knowest  that  against  hell-fire,  after  that  first  protection  of  the  baptism 
ordained  by  the  Lord,  there  is  yet  in  confession  [exomologesis)  a  second 

1  The  Greek  word  for  coTifession,  often  used  b3'^  the  early  fathers. 

2  Presby  teris  advolvi,  et  carls  Dei  adgeniculari.  For  caris  —  beloved,  some  editions  read  am  —  altars. 

3  An  melius est  damnatuin  latere  quam  palam  ahsolvi? 

4  Quam  tibi  e.xomologesis  extinguet.. 

H2 


42 


CHURCH  HISTCRY. 


aid,  why  dost  thou  abandon  thy  salvation  ?  Why  delay  to  enter  on  that, 
which  thou  knowest  will  heal  thee  ? 

St.  Cyprian  writes  not  less  clearly  of  the  faith  and  practice  of  Christians 
on  this  subject,  in  the  third  century: 

“  None  can  escape  the  eye  of  God.  He  sees  the  heart  and  breast  of 
every  person  ;  and  He  will  judge,  not  only  our  actions,  but  also  our 
words  and  thoughts.  He  regards  the  minds  of  all,  and  the  wishes  con¬ 
cealed  even  in  the  hidden  recesses  of  the  breast.  In  line,  how  much 
loftier  in  faith,  and  superior  in  the  fear  (of  God)  are  those  wlio,  though 
implicated  in  no  crime  of  sacrifice,  or  of  accepting  a  certificate,  yet, 
because  they  have  only  had  the  thought  thereof,  this  very  thing  sorrowingly 
and  honestly  confessing  before  the  priests  oj  God,  make  a.  confession  (exo- 
mologesis)  of  their  conscience,  expose  the  burden  of  the  soul,  seek  out  a 
salutary  cure  even  for  light  and  little  wounds,  knowing  that  it  is  written, 

God  will  not  be  mocked.  ...  I  beseech  you,  most  dear  brethren,  let 
each  confess  his  sin,  whilst  he  that  has  sinned  is  yet  among  the  living ; 
while  his  confession  can  be  admitted  ;  while  the  satisfaction  and  the 
remission,  made  through  the  priests,  are  pleasing  before  the  Lord.’'^ 

Many  similar  passages  from  the  writings  of  these  two  and  of  other 
fathers  might  be  alleged  ;  but  these  will  suffice  to  show  that,  even  from 
the  very  earliest  period,  the  obligation  of  confession  to  a  priest  was 
generally  recognized.  And  it  is  not  to  be  supposed,  that  this  obligation 
was  less  sensibly  or  extensively  felt  during  ages  which,  Mr.  Palmer  himself 
assures  us,  constantly  “appealed  to  the  sentiments  of  the  ancient  fathers 
and  councils  in  the  interpretation  of  the  Bible. 

2.  Nor  is  it  at  all  true  that  “this  custom  was  abolished  in  the  east  by 
Nectarius,  patriarch  of  Constantinople,  in  the  fourth  century,  and  by  the 
majority  of  the  eastern  church.”'*  This  is  a  most  glaring  perversion  of 
history.  Nectarius  never  even  dreamed  of  abolishing  confession 

to  a  priest ;  nor  did  the  majority  of  the  eastern  church  ever  think  of  any 
such  thino'.  Such  confession  continued  to  be  general  thi-oughout  the 
Greek  church  after  the  death  of  Nectarius,  as  we  learn  from  his  successor, 
St.  Chrysostom,  (A.  D.  397),  and  from  all  the  historians  of  that  period. 
This  is  altogether  certain  from  incontestable  evidence,  which  we  could 
easily  accumulate  ;  and  Mr.  Palmer  should  be  ashamed  to  assert  the 
contrary.®  Both  the  historians,  Sozomenus  and  Socrates,®  who  relate  the 
fact  of  Nectarius,  plainly  bear  us  out  in  our  assertion. 

The  former  introduces  his  account  of  the  affair  in  the  following  words  *, 
“As  to  avoid  all  sin  is  more  than  human  nature  can  do  ;  and  God  has 
commanded  pardon  to  be  granted  to  those  that  repent,  though  they  have 
often  sinned  ;  and  as,  in  begging  pardon,  it  is  necessary  that  sin  should  he 
at  the  same  time  confessed,  it,  from  the  beginning,  deservedly  seemed  to  the 
priests  a  heavy  burden,  that  sinners  should  proclaim  their  sins,  as  in  a 

1  De  I'oeiiitentia,  n.  8  —  12. 

2  Coiifiteantur  sing-uli  delictum  suum,  dumadhuc  qui  deliquit  in  Ra?culo  est  dum  admitti  confessio 
ejus  potest,  dum  satisfactio  et  remissio  facta  per  sacerdotes  apud  Doiniiiuin  grata  est. —  De  Lapsis 

3  I’  78,  sup.  citat. 

4.  Mr.  Palmer  had  as.serted  the  same  thing  more  in  detail  on  pages  32,  33. 

5  See  *■  Faith  of  Catholics,”  vol.  Ill,  p.  28,  et.  seq  ,  and  Catholic  theologians,  passim. 

6  They  wrote  in  the  fifth  century,  and  continued  the  Church  History  of  Eusebius. 


THE  MIDDLE  AGES. 


43 


theatre,  in  the  presence  of  all  the  multitude.”*  He  then  goes  on  to  state 
how,  some  time  in  the  third  century,  a  public  penitentiary  was  appointed 
to  receive  the  confession,  and  to  enjoin  suitable  public  penance  ;  and  how, 
from  a  great  scandal  which  occurred  in  the  church  of  Constantinople, 
Ncctarius  was  induced,  by  the  popular  clamor  and  indignation,  to  suppress 
this  office  of  penitentiary.  This  functionary  presided  over  the  disiribu- 
tion  of  'public  penances,  and  was  a  kind  of  censor  morum  His  office 
once  suppressed,  things  returned  to  their  usual  course,  and  Christians 
still  believed,  as  the  historian  who  wrote  after  the  event,  assures  us,  that 
“  it  was  necessary  that  sin  should  be  confessed.”  By  the  act  of  Nec- 
tarius,  the  office  of  public  penitentiary  alone  was  abolished,  and  with  it 
the  discipline  of  public  confession,  “  as  in  a  theatre,”  was  done  away 
with  ;  but  the  obligation  of  private  confession  was  still  generally  felt  and 
acted  on.  You  might  as  well  argue  from  the  breaking  of  an  unworthy 
magistrate  or  judge,  that  the  whole  administration  of  justice  was  abol¬ 
ished,  as  to  argue  the  general  suppression  of  confession  from  this  fact  of 
Nectarius. 

Socrates  relates  the  whole  occurrence  in  almost  the  same  manner  ; 
and  he  unites  with  Sozomenus  in  expressing  his  decided  disapproval  of 
the  conduct  of  Nectarius^.  What  both  historians  add,  that  after  this 
suppression  of  the  penitentiary,  Christians  in  the  east  “were  permitted 
to  confess  their  sins  to  a  priest,  before  communion,  as  their  own  judgment 
might  direct  them,”  besides  that  it  had,  as  they  both  explicitly  avow,  no 
relation  whatever  to  the  western  churches,  could  only  be  meant  to  imply 
that  public  confession  to  the  penitentiary^  was  no  longer  enjoined  in  the 
east.* 

Mr.  Palmer  is  heartily  welcome  to  all  the  benefit,  he  or  his  admirers 
may  be  able  to  derive  from  these  stubborn  facts.  His  version  of  the 
matter  is  the  same  old  stale  and  liackneyed  charge,  which  had  been 
already  repeated  and  refuted  a  hundred  times;  and  which,  in  spite  of  all 
evidence  to  the  contrary,  will  perhaps  still  be  repeated  to  the  end  of  time 
by  prejudiced  smatterers,  who  may  write  what  they  will  call  history. 

It  is  really  curious  to  see  how  our  author  applies  his  strange  Oxford 
theory  in  regard  to  the  holy  Eucharist,  to  the  facts  of  Church  History, 
during  the  period  in  question.  If  any  one  can  clearly  understand  his 
real  opinion  on  the  subject,  he  must  have  clearer  optics  than  ourselves, 
even  with  the  aid  of  our  Roman  glasses  ;  and  Bishop  Whittingham,  as 
we  shall  see,  only  makes  confusion  worse  confounded.  Neither  of  them 
seems  either  to  admit  or  to  deny  the  real  presence  ;  they  both  halt 
somewhere  between  these  two  things  ;  but  whether  they  hold  to  the  absurd 
system  of  Lutheran'"  consubstantiation,  or  to  the  wholly  unintelligible 
opinion  of  Calvin  of  a  real  figurative  presence ;  or  whether  they  have 

1  Hist.  Ecclesiast.  lib.  vii.  cap.  xvi.  , 

.  2  Historias  Kcclesia-sticae,  lib.  v.  cap.  xix  For  all  the  facts  and  evidence  on  the  subject  see  Palma 
Prce.lectiones,  vol.  i,  part  ii,  p.  141,  et.  seq. 

3  See  the  notes  of  the  learned  Henry  Valois  on  theecclesia.stical  histories  of  Socrate.s  and  Sezouieuu»< 


44 


CHURCH  HISTORY. 


struck  out  a  new  path  or  new  paths  for  themselves,  we  are  really  not 
prepared  to  say.  As  our  readers  may,  however,  be  more  acute  than  we 
are,  we  will  give  them  an  opportunity  of  judging  for  themselves  ;  merely 
recording  our  decided  conviction,  that  there  is,  and  can  be,  no  rational 
medium  between  the  full  admission  of  the  Catholic  doctrine  of  transub- 
stantiation,  and  the  unqualified  rejection  of  the  real  presence  altogether. 

Mr.  Palmer  thus  writes  on  the  subject : 

“  In  the  ninth  century,  the  doctrine  of  the  holy  Eucharist  became  the 
subject  of  discussion.  It  had  never  been  denied  by  the  Catholic  Church, 
that  this  sacrament,  when  consecrated,  continues  to  be  bread  and  wine, 
according  to  the  words  of  the  apostle  :  ‘  the  bread  which  we  break,  is  it 
not  the  communion  of  the  body  of  Christ?’  and  of  our  Lord,  ‘I  will 
drink  no  more  of  the  fruit  of  the  vinef  ”  etc} 

We  humbly  enter  our  solemn  protest  against  the  putting  of  this  absurd 
interpretation,  or  rather  perversion  of  the  Scriptures,  into  the  mouth  of 
the  Holy  Catholic  Church.  The  passage  from  St.  Paul,  and  what  the 
apostle  farther  says  on  the  subject  in  the  following  chapter,  clearly 
establish  the  Catholic  doctrine  of  the  real  presence  ;  and  his  calling  the 
holy  Eucharist  bread  after  the  consecration,  only'proves  that  it  continued 
to  have  all  the  appearances  and  sensible  qualities  of  bread  ;  while  the 
words  of  our  blessed  Lord,  as  clearly  appears  from  St.  Luke’s  gospel, 
do  not  refer  to  the  consecrated  wine  at  all,  but  merely  to  that  used  in 
the  paschal  supper,  which  preceded  the  institution  of  the  holy  Eucha¬ 
rist.  All  this  has  been  proved  over  and  again  ;  nor  does  our  present 
scope  require  or  allow  us  to  enter  fully  into  a  subject,  which  has  been 
already  fully  elucidated 

The  historian  next  proceeds  to  state,  that  Paschasius  Radbert,  a 
French  monk,  first  introduced  the  doctrine  of  transubstantiation  (!),  and 
to  censure  Scotus  and  Berengarius  for  falling  into  the  opposite  extreme, 
of  “declaring  the  Eucharist  to  be  a  bare  sign  of  the  body  and  blood  of 
Christ,  contrary  to  the  universal  belief  of  the  Church.”  ^  Here  the 
Right  Reverend  note-maker  feels  aggrieved,  and  undertakes  to  defend 
Berengarius  after  this  wise  : 

“  This  was  long  held  to  be  the  case  ;  yet  not  without  doubt.  (See 
Mosheim.)  But  it  has  lately  been  disproved  by  the  publication  of  a 
treatise  of  Berenger,  fuller  and  later  than  any  before  known,  which 
plainly  shows  his  view  of  the  sacrament  to  have  been  different  from  that 
of  Scotus.” 

The  bishop  here  again  proves  himself  much  wiser  than  all  antiquity, 
—  wiser  than  the  bishops  of  the  eight  different  councils  which  succes¬ 
sively  condemned  the  errors  of  Berengarius  from  the  year  1050  to  the 
year  1080, — wiser  than  Berengarius  himself,  who  repeatedly  quotes  and 
praises  the  opinions  of  Scotus.  We  are  left  to  our  conjectures  as  to  the 
character  of  this  “publication  of  Berenger,  fuller  and  later  than  any 


1  80. 


2  Ibid,  page  81. 


THE  MIDDLE  AGES. 


45 


before  known;”  but  we  presume  that  it  is  not  “fuller  or  later”  than 
the  unequivocal  recantation  of  his  errors,  and  profession  of  the  Catholic 
faith  made  by  him  in  the  council  of  Bordeaux,  in  1080;  which  confes¬ 
sion  of  faith  was  satisfactory  to  the  assembled  fathers,  and  obiained  his 
readmission  into  the  bosom  of  the  Catholic  Church,  from  which  he  is 
not  recorded  to  have  again  departed.  This  is  surely  the  fullest  and 
latest  edition  of  the  opinions  of  Berengarius. 

But  the  bishop  evidently  wished  to  catch,  in  the  meshes  of  Puseyism, 
the  cunning  arch-heretic  of  the  eleventh  century.  If  the  facts  of  history 
would  warrant  it,  we  would  cheerfully  give  him,  not  only  Bei*engarius, 
but  all  the  heretics  of  the  olden  time.  In  fact,  the  crafty  and  versatile 
archdeacon  of  Angers  (Berengarius)  would,  we  humbly  think,  have 
made  an  excellent  Puseyite,  had  he  only  chanced  to  be  born  at  Oxford 
in  the  nineteenth  century  1  He  had  all  the  qualities  requisite  for  a’ 
genuine  Oxfordite.  He  had  the  knack  of  so  wrapping  up  his  real 
opinions  in  obscure  verbiage,  as  to  mj^stify  and  deceive  his  cotempora¬ 
ries,  including  even  many  bishops.  But  Pope  Gregory  VII.  was  as 
cunning  at  least  as  he :  he  caught  him  at  last,  won  him  by  kindness, 
convinced  him  of  his  errors,  and  caused  him  to  recant,  first  in  the 
Roman  council  held  in  1073,  and  then,  more  fully  and  explicitly,  in 
that  of  Bordeaux,  in  1080.  If  the  Puseyites,  who  have  imitated  him 
in  his  wanderings,  would  likewise  imitate  him  in  his  return  to  Catholic 
unity,  they  would  find  Pius  IX.  as  kind  and  paternal  as  was  Gregory 
VII.  But  whether  the  Protestant  bishop  of  Maryland  be  disposed  to 
follow  this  “latest”  example  of  Berengarius  or  not,  we  at  least  wish 
him  more  success  in  his  effort  to  make  Berengarius  a  Puseyite,  than  he 
has  had  in  a  late  similar  attempt  on  one  Ratramn.' 

On  another  page,  the  bishop  gives,  in  a  note,  a  very  curious  explana¬ 
tion  of  the  manner  in  which,  what  he  calls  the  “unholy  tyranny”  of 
Rome  originated.  As  a  specimen  of  sagacious  reasoning,  it  is,  in  truth, 
a  perfect  curiosity  in  its  way.  Mr.  Palmer  had  said  that  during  this 
period  “the  bishops  began  to  assume  temporal  authority — he  would 
have  said,  more  truly,  that  emperors  and  princes  and  circumstances 
forced  it  upon  them.  Now  here  is  the  editor’s  sapient  note  on  the 
subject : 

“It  was  clearly  through  these  usurpations  of  the  bishops  that  the 
unholy  tyranny  of  Rome  grew  into  being.  The  episcopal  claims  were 
gradually  concentred  in  the  one  apostolical  see  of  the  west ;  and  all  the 
power  that  the  weakness  or  wickedness  of  temporal  princes  had  thrown 
into  the  hands  of  the  spiritual  rulers,  was  thus  drawn  to  a  single  focus.”" 

Well,  we  humbly  think,  and  we  say  it  with  all  due  respect,  that  the 
bishop’s  wits  were  not  “drawn  to  a  focus,”  when  he  penned  this 
strange  note.  To  us  it  sounds  like  something  very  nearly  akin  to 


1  For  a  learned  and  satisfactory  account  of  llerengarius,  see  Palma,  Prctlectionts^  vol.  iii,  part  i, 
jage  33,  et  seq.  2  Page  103. 


46 


CHURCH  HISTORY. 


downright  absurdity.  The  bishops  throughout  the  world  acquired 
more  power,  and  therefore  more  independence ;  and  hence  the  Roman 
Pontiffs  were  enabled  the  more  easily  to  establish  their  “unholy 
tyranny’’  over  them!  We  would  as  soon  undertake  to  extract  logic 
and  sense  from  the  vagaries  of  Puseyism  itself,  as  to  gather  either  from 
this  precious  piece  of  argument ! 

Mr.  Palmer  attempts  to  account  for  the  origin  of  this  “unholy 
tyranny”  in  another  way:  he  brings  up  again,  for  the  hundredth  time, 
the  stale  argument  drawn  from  the  spurious  decretals,  ascribed  to 
Isidore  Mercator.  This  argument  had  been  dead  and  buried  centuries 
ago  ;  but  our  Oxfordite  calls  it  up  again  from  the  tomb,  hoping  by  the 
exhibition  of  the  ghastly  spectre  to  frighten  —  old  women  and  children  1 
for  men  of  sense  have  long  since  learned  to  view  it  with  a  steady  nerve  ; 
that  is,  if  they  can  check  the  rising  disposition  to  merriment,  at  the 
absurd  importance  attached  to  it  by  some  superficial  persons  1  Here  are 
his  words  : 

“The  power  of  the  Roman  see  in  the  western  church  was  greatly 
augmented  in  the  ninth  century,  by  the  fabrication  of  a  large  body  of 
decretal  epistles  or  ecclesiastical  laws,  which  purported  to  have  been 
written  by  the  Popes  during  the  first  three  centuries,  and  in  which  the 
judgment  of  all  bishops,  the  holding  of  all  councils,  and  a  right  to  hear 
appeals  from  all  ecclesiastical  judgments,  were  claimed  for  the  Roman 
Pontiffs,”  etc.' 

Mosheim  had  gone  a  step  farther,  and  boldly  asserted,  what  our 
modest  historian  only  plainly  intimates,  that  the  Popes  themselves  were 
concerned  in  this  fabrication.  The  truth  is,  the  Popes  had  nothing  at  all 
to  do  with  the  collection  in  question  ;  nor  can  it  be  proved  that  Nicholas 
I.  ever  declared  those  decretals  genuine,  as  Mr.  Palmer  asserts  he  did.'^ 
They  were  composed  and  circulated,  some  time  in  the  eighth  century, 
by  some  person  calling  himself  Isidore  Mercator  or  Peccator,^ — a  man  so 
obscure  that  the  learned  are  not  yet  agreed  as  to  his  origin,  or  even  his 
name.  He  appears  to  have  composed  the  work  somewhere  in  Germany 

1  Pages  103 — 4. 

2  Ibid.  The  spurious  decretals  were  circulated  in  conjunction  with  many  other  documents  of 

undoubted  genuineness  ;  and  the  whole  collection  was  soon  received  as  having  the  force  of  law. 
Nicholas  I.  merely  insisted  on  its  authority  as  law,  which  it  had  already  acquired  by  custom.  The 
fact  of  its  genuineness  was  not  so  much  discussed  as  assumed.  (Cf.  Epist.  Nicholai  I.  Hincmaro 
Rhcmens.)  Some  additional  light  is  perhaps  thrown  on  this  whole  transaction  by  the  fact,  that  it 
was  not  unu.sual  in  the  fourth,  fifth,  and  following  centuries,  for  authors  to  write  under  assumed  or 
fictitious  names.  Thus  the  writer  who  put  forth  the  collection  of  canonical  regulations,  called  the 
ipostoHcal  Constitvtions,  probably  some  time  in  the  fourth  century,  ascribed  those  laws  to  the 
apostles  themselves:  though  they  merely  embodied  the  ecclesiastical  discipline  of  the  first  four 
centuries;  chiefly  that  of  the  Greek  church.  This  collection  is  certainly  spurious;  yet  it  has 
considerable  authority  from  the  fact  just  named,  tind  from  the  additional  circumstance,  that  it  had 
great  weight  in  the  fourth  and  following  centuries.  Isidore’s  collection  borrowed  largely  from  the 
one  just  named  In  the  fifth  century,  Vigilius  Tapsensis  composed  several  works  under  the  fictitious 
name  of  and  some  critics  believe  that  he  is  the  real  author  of  the  works  ascribed  to 

Dionysius,  the  Areopagite.  In  those  times,  men  did  not  care  so  much  for  the  name  of  the  author,  as 
tor  the  intrinsic  merits  of  his  book:  and  this  circumstance  may  aid  us  in  understanding,  why  the 
collection  of  Isidore  was  not  more  critically  examined, 

3  Some  think  that  the  real  author  of  them  was  Benedictus  Levita. 


THE  MIDLE  AGES. 


47 


He  states  himself  that  his  object  in  writing  it  was, —  not  to  exalt  the 
privileges  of  the  Roman  Pontiffs, — but  to  save  the  bishops  from  being 
annoyed  with  unnecessary  litigation. 

Will  it  be  believed  that  a  man  so  obscure,  and  writing  in  a  part  of 
the  world  so  remote  from  Rome,  would  have  been  able  to  revolutionize 
public  opinion  in  regard  to  the  power  of  the  Popes  ?  Would  a  mere 
pettifogger  of  the  present  day  be  able,  by  putting  out  a  new  body  of 
laws,  to  change  the  whole  face  of  the  science  of  jurisprudence,  and  to 
make  men  believe  what  they  had  hitherto  rejected  ?  It  will  be  said, 
that  this  is  an  enlightened,  and  that  the  eighth  century  was  a  dark 
age.  But  even  admitting  all  this,  for  the  sake  of  argument,  the  parallel 
still  holds  good  ;  for  it  requires  not  enlightenment,  but  mere  common 
sense, —  and  men  we  presume  always  had  common  sense, —  not  to  be 
led  away  by  every  driveler  who  may  choose  to  broach  a  new  system,  or 
to  publish  a  new  book. 

Had  the  spurious  collection  of  Isidore  contained  aught  that  was  not 
fully  conformable  to  the  canonical  usages  of  the  eighth  and  ninth 
centuries,  it  would  certainly  never  have  obtained  the  approbation  it  did 
receive.  It  passed  current  unchallenged,  because  it  did  but  embody 
the  principles  of  those  and  of  previous  ages.  Nor  was  it  entirely  a 
fabrication ;  it  was  chiefly  U  tissue  of  passages  extracted  from  the 
councils  and  fathers  of  the  fourth,  fifth,  and  sixth  centuries.  The  only 
fault  of  the  writer  was,  to  have  placed  these  words  in  the  mouths  of 
the  Popes  of  the  first  three  centuries.  This,  though  a  serious  fault  in 
criticism,  was  yet  not  one  which  seriously  affected  the  substance  of 
things.  Something  more  than  mere  assertion  will  be  necessary  to  prove 
that  the  principles  embodied  in  this  collection  were  new  and  before 
unheard  of ;  or  that  the  action  on  them  by  the  Roman  Pontiff’s  was 
generally  resisted  by  “the  bishops,  especially  those  of  France,” — as 
Mr.  Palmer  tells  us.‘ 

It  could  be  easfly  proved,  that  all  the  prerogatives  of  the  Roman 
Pontiff's, — “  the  judgment  of  all  bishops,  ^the  holding  of  all  councils, 
and  a  right  to  hear  appeals  from  all  ecclesiastical  judgment,” — which 
our  flippant  historian  assures  us  were  first  introduced  by  these  false 
decretals,  had  been  already  generally  recognized  and  brought  into  action 
for  many  centuries  before. 

Had  not  the  third  and  fourth  canons  of  the  great  council  of  Sardica, 
111  me  middle  of  the  fourth  century,  expressly  recognized  the  right  of 
the  Roman  Pontiffs  to  receive  appeals  from  all  parts  of  Christendom, 
especially  in  controversies  regarding  bishops  ?  Had  not  the  Bishops  of 
Rome  exercised  this  right  of  their  see  from  the  very  beginning,  not  only 
ill  the  west  but  also  in  the  east?  Had  not  Pope  Julius  I.  written  to 
the  Arians  of  the  east,  who  had  condemned  St.  Athanasius,  as  follows  : 
“  Were  you  ignorant  that  it  was  customary  that  we  should  be  written  to 
first,  that  hence  the  first  decision  might  issue?”  And  does  not  the 


1  Ibid. 


48 


CHURCH  HISTORY. 


Greek  historian,  Sozomenus,  speaking  of  this  letter  of  Julius,  say : 
“  There  was  a  sacerdotal  law,  that  those  things  should  be  held  null  and 
void,  which  were  done  against  or  without  the  sanction  of  the  Roman 
Bishop?'*^  Had  not  the  legate  of  the  Roman  see,  in  the  general 
council  of  Chalcedon,  (A.  D.  451,)  composed  almost  entirely  of  Greek 
bishops,  insisted  successfully  on  the  exclusion  from  the  council,  of 
Dioscorus,  patriarch  of  A  lexandria,  on  the  ground  that  he  “  had  presumed 
and  dared  to  celebrate  a  general  synod  without  the  authority  of  the  holy 
see,  v)hich  never  had  been  allowed,  never  had  been  done  ?  ^ 

A  volume  might  be  filled  with  such  facts  ;  but  these  will  suffice  to 
prove,  that  the  spurious  decretals  effected  no  change  whatever  in  the 
relations  of  the  Church  to  the  Roman  Pontiffs.^ 

We  must  briefly  advert  to  one  more  topic,  and  then  we  will  close  our 
remarks  on  the  present  epoch .  Mr.  Palmer  tells  our  roundly,  that  the 
Greek  schism  was  caused  by  the  ambition  of  the  Roman  Pontiffs  :  “  the 
east  and  the  west  were  estranged  by  the  ambition  of  the  Roman  Pontiffs.”'* 
Nothino’  could  be  more  unfounded  than  this  assertion.  All  the  documents 

O 

of  liistory  conspire  to  prove,  that  it  was  the  unhallowed  ambition  of  the 
bishops  of  Constantinople,  and  not  that  of  the  Roman  Pontiffs,  which 
originated  and  consummated  this  deplorable  division  of  tlie  Church. 
The  see  of  Constantinople  —  called  Byzantaum  before  it  became  the  seat 
of  empire  under  Constantine  the  Great  in  330  —  was  not  even  one  of 
those  which  had  been  founded  by  the  apostles  or  their  immediate  disciples. 
Originally  it  had  no  pre-eminence  whatever  ;  its  bishops  were  merely  the 
suffragans  of  Heraclea,  the  metropolis  of  Thrace.  For  the  first  three 
hundred  and  fifty  years  of  the  Christian  era,  it  was  never  even  mentioned 
among  the  principal  sees.  During  all  this  time,  there  were  only  three 
great  patriarchates,  which  ranked  as  follows  :  first,  that  of  Rome  ;  second 
that  of  Alexandria  ;  third,  that  of  Antioch.®  This  order  of  pre-eminence 
was  generally  recognized,  and  was  followed  in  the  proceedings  of  the 
first  general  council,  —  that  of  Nice,  in  326. 

It  is  curious  to  mark  the  various  successive  steps,  by  which  this 
original  order  of  things  was  disturbed,  and  the  bishops  of  Constantinople 
arose  to  eminence  by  their  own  restless  ambition,  aided  by  the  infiuence 
of  the  Greek  emperors.  This  powerful  influence  repressed,  if  it  did  not 
silence,  the  murmurs  of  the  bishops  of  Alexandria  and  Antioch,  who 
could  not  but  view  with  some  displeasure  this  sudden  elevation  of  the 
bishops  of  the  imperial  city,  to  the  prejudice  of  their  own  long  established 
rights.  The  first  step  was  taken  in  the  second  general  council  convened 
at  Constantinople,  in  the  year  381,  for  the  condemnation  of  the  heresy 
of  Macedonius,  bishop  of  that  city, —  and  we  may  remark  here,  en  passant, 

1  Hist.  Ecclesiasr..  lib.  iii,  cap.  x. 

2  ‘-Quia  piffisump.sit,  et  ausus  est  gynodum  generalem  facere  sine  auctoritate  sedia  Apostolicje, 
quod  mtnquam  licuit,  niinquam.  factum  est,’’'  —  Concil.  Chalced.  Act,  i.  Cf.  Archbishop  Keurick  '‘on 
the  Primacy.” 

3  This  wli ole  subject  is  handled  by  Palma  with  his  usual  learning  and  ability.  —  Prcp.lectioncs 
tom.  ii,  part  II,  p.  124,  et  seq.  See  also  Archbishop  Kenrick  “  on  the  Primacy.” 

6.  5  That  of  Jeru.salem  was  of  subsequent  date. 


THE  MIDDLE  AGES. 


49 


that  the  bishops  of  Constantinople  originated  three  at  least,  if  not  more, 
of  the  great  heresies  which  disturbed  the  early  Church ! 

The  third  canon  of  this  council  enacted,  that  “  the  bishop  of 
Constantinople  should  have  the  first  place  of  honor  after  the  Roman 
bishop,  because  Constantinople  is  the  new  Rome.”  This  is,  to  say  the 
least,  a  very  insufficient  reason  for  a  plain  usurpation  :  but  it  marks  the 
real  source  of  the  pre-eminence  claimed  by  the  Constantinopolitan 
bishops.  The  Roman  see,  and  the  Western  Church,  never  approved  of 
this  canon.  It  was  justly  viewed  as  the  commencement  of  an  innovation 
frauofht  with  dansfer  to  the  Church.  The  forecast  of  the  Roman  Pontiffs 
tias  been,  alas  1  but  too  sadly  confirmed  by  the  event. 

Emboldened  by  this  partial  success,  the  ambitious  bishops  of  Constan¬ 
tinople  went  a  step  farther.  After  the  council  of  Chalcedon  had  closed 
its  sessions  in  451,  and  the  legates  of  the  Roman  see  had  departed, 
Anatolius,  then  bishop  of  Constantinople,  assembled  a  portion  of  the 
eastern  bishops,  and  clandestinely  enacted  the  famous  28th  canon  of  that 
council  which  gave  to  the  bishops  of  the  imperial  city,  for  the  reason 
assigned  above,  equal  honor  and  authority  with  those  of  Rome  :  and  this 
too  in  the  face  of  the  solemn  declarations  of  the  same  council'  in  its 
sixteenth  action  or  session  :  “We  all  see  that,  before  all  things,  the 
primacy  and  the  principal  honor  should,  according  to  the  cinons,  be 
confirmed  to  the  most  beloved  Arch-bishop  of  ancient  Rome  !  ”  It  is 
needless  to  observe,  that  Pope  St.  Leo  the  Great,  and  with  him  all  the 
western  Church,  strongly  condemned  this  canon. 

We  pass  over  the  arrogant  assumption  by  John  the  Faster,  —  another 
bishop  of  Constantinople,  —  of  the  lofty  title  of  oecumenical  or  universal 
bishop,  —  an  attempt  for  which'he  was  well  rebuked  by  Pope  St.  Gregory 
the  Great.  We  omit  also  to  refer  to  some  further  indications  of  a  similar 
pride  in  the  proceedings  of  the  Greek  council  in  Trullo,  in  692  ;  or  to 
the  ambitious  attempts  of  the  bishops  of  Constantinople  to  encroach  on 
the  jurisdiction  of  the  Roman  patriarchate.*  We- come  down  immediately 
to  Photius  in  the  ninth  century,  who  was  certainly  an  ambitious  usurper, 
foisted  into  the  see  of  Constantinople  by  the  power  of  the  imperial  court. 
His  consecration  was  in  every  respect  uncanonical  and  irregular;  Rome 
very  properly  raised  her  voice  against  it,  and  succeeded  in  having  the 
sainted  Ignatius,  the  lawful  bishop,  re-established  in  his  see.  The  schism 
was  thus  crushed  for  a  time  ;  but  Photius  was  a  man  of  great  talent  and 
versatility,  and  as  untiring  in  his  efforts  as  he  was  unprincipled.  He 
succeeded,  but  too  well,  in  poisoning  the  minds  of  many  among  the 
Greek  bishops  against  Rome  ;  and  he  was  enabled  to  exercise  this  baneful 
influence  the  more  effectually,  after  he  had  succeeded,  by  his  arts,  in 
being  again  constituted  bishop  of  Constantinople,  on  the  death  of 
St.  lo-natius. 

O 

Two  centuries  later,  this  suppressed  animosity  broke  out  into  an  open, 
and,  with  two  brief  intervals  excepted,  a  final  rupture  with  Rome,  under 

1  This  is  acknowledged  in  substance  bv  Mr.  Palmer  himself —  pp  lOi,  105. 

I  '7 


50 


CHURCH  HISTORY. 


the  Constantinopolitan  bishop,  Michael  Cerularius.  Mr.  Palmer  himself 
admits,  that  this  proud  man  was  the  aggressor,  in  the  controversy  which 
arose  between  him  and  Rome.  He  tells  us  that 

“When  Cerularius,  bishop  of  Constantinople,  wrote  to  the  bishop  of 
Trani  in  Italy  condemning  several  of  the  rites  and  ceremonies  of  the 
Roman  Church,  and  shut  up  the  Latin  churches  and  monasteries  in 
Constantinople,  the  legate  of  the  Roman  see,  Cardinal  Humbert,  insisted 
on  his  implicit  submission  to  the  Pope ;  and,  on  his  refusal,  left  an 
excommunication  on  the  altar  of  his  patriarchal  church  of  St.  Sophia  at 
Constantinople.”^ 

Among  the  “  rites  and  ceremonies  of  the  Roman  Church”  censured  by 
Cerularius  in  his  letter  to  John,  bishop  of  Trani,  were  the  following  : 

“  That  the  Latins  did  notabstain  from  thins^s  strano-led  and  from  blood: 
that  they  consecrated  in  unleavened  bread  ;  that  their  monks  eot  hogs* 
lard;  that  ihehr  priests  shaved  their  beards  ;  that  their  bishops  wore  rings 
like  bridegrooms  ;  that  fast  was  kept  on  Saturday ;  and  that  Alleluia  was 
not  sung  in  Lent ! 

With  this  brief  summary  of  undoubted  facts,  we  leave  our  readers  to 
decide,  whether  it  was  the  ambition  of  the  Roman  Pontiflfs  which  caused 
the  Greek  schism.  We  could  easily  show  that  in  all  the  first  eight 
general  councils,  composed  too  almost  entirely  of  Greek  bishops,  the 
primacy  of  the  Roman  Pontiffs  was  distinctly  and  repeatedly  recognized; 
and  that  in  all  of  them  the  legates  of  the  Roman  see  presided.^  We 
must  be  content  with  one  or  two  remarks  on  the  proceedings  of  the  first 
general  council, —  that  of  Nice,  in  325. 

The  sixth  canon  of  this  council  has  often  been  cited  against  the 
primacy;  though,  even  as  it  now  stands,  it  says  nothing  opposed  to  this 
tenet.  In  many  of  the  oldest  manuscript  copies  of  the  Nicene  canons, 
the  phrase,  “  the  Roman  church  always  held  the  primacy, is  inserted 
at  the  beginning  of  this  same  canon.  It  was  found  in  the  copy  used  by 
the  Roman  Church  in  the  fourth  century ;  and  it  was  read  and  approved 
of  in  the  sixteenth  session  of  the  council  of  Chalcedon.  The  passage 
which  we  quoted  above  from  this  council,  immediately  follows  the 
reading  of  the  Nicene  canon  with  the  clause  referred  to.  That  this 
-clause  was  also  found  in  the  older  collections  of  the  Nicene  canons,  used 
in  the  east  in  the  fourth  century,  would  appear  from  a  decree  of  the 
Emperor  Valentinian  against  St.  Hilary  of  Arles,  in  which  instrument 
distinct  allusion  is  made  to  this  portion  of  the  canon  :  “  the  authority  of 
ihe  sacred  synod  has  confirmed  the  primacy  of  the  apostolic  see  of 
Peter,”  &c.* 

But  our  observations  on  the  present  epoch  have  already  extended  far 
beyond  what  we  had  originally  intended,  and  though  many  things  yet 
remain  to  be  noticed,  we  must  hasten  on  to  the  next  sera. 

1  p  106.  2  See  Palma,  vol.  ill,  part  i,  p.  62  et  seq. 

3  See,  among  other  writers^  Cabassutius  — Notitia  Ecclesias.  p.  103,  et  seq.  and  Archbishop  Kenrick 
“on  the  Primacy.” 

4  H  sxxT^ridia  rCavto-fs  to.  TCpcoi'cia. 

b  Cf  Cabassutius,  ibid,  p.  Ill,  et  seq.  vol.  i,  fol.  Edit.  Lugduni,  1702. 


51 


# 


THE  MIDDLE  AGES. 

EPOCH  IV,  A.  D.  1054 — 1517.‘ 

f 

Our  remarks  on  this  period  will  be  necessarily  very  brief.  It  waii 
signalized  by  the  final  conversion  of  many  of  the  northern  nations,  and 
by  the  holy  lives  of  such  men  as  St.  Anselm,  St.  Bernard,  St.  Laurence 
Justinian,  and  Thomas  a  Kempis.  Our  author  furnishes  beautiful  sketches 
of  the  lives  of  all  these  illustrious  men.  We  have  room  only  for  the 
following  touching  anecdote  of  St.  Anselm,  archbishop  of  Canterbury, 
who  died,  A.  D.  1109  : 

"‘He  often  retired  in  the  day  to  his  devotions,  and  not  unfrequently 
continued  the  whole  night  in  prayer.  An  anecdote  has  been  preserved 
which  shows  how  continually  his  mind  was  engaged  on  the  great  and 
awful  realities  of  religion.  One  day  as  he  was  riding,  at  one  of  his 
manors,  a  hare  pursued  by  the  hounds  ran  under  his  horse  for  refuge  ; 
on  which  he  stopped,  and  the  hounds  stood  at  bay.  The  hunters  began 
to  laugh  at  the  circumstance  ;  but  Anselm  said  weeping  ‘this  hare  reminds 
me  of  a  poor  sinner  on  the  point  of  departing  this  life  surrounded  by  devils 
w'aiting  to  carry  away  their  prey.’  The  hare  going  off,  he  forbade  lier  to 
be  pursued,  and  was  obeyed.  In  this  manner  every  circumstance  served 
to  raise  his  mind  to  God ;  and,  in  the  midst  of  noise  and  tumult,  he 
enjoyed  all  of  that  tranquility  and  peace  which  naturally  arose  from  the 
continual  contemplation  of  his  God  and  Saviour,and  which  elevated  him 
above  the  cares  and  anxieties  of  this  life.”^ 

This  is  a  pretty  good  specimen  of  the  good  old  Catholic  piety  in  the 
middle  ages.  We  doubt  very  much  whether  any  Protestant  archbishop 
of  Canterbury  has  been  endowed  with  any  such  sanctity ;  or  whether 
any  one  of  the  modern  fox-hunting  parsons  of  the  Anglican  establishment 
was  ever  known  to  pause  in  the  chase,  to  make  any  such  pious  reflections  ! 
What  says  Bishop  Whittingham  on  this  subject  ?  He  has  not  thought  it 
necessary  to  append  a  little  note  here,  for  our  special  enlightenment. 

We  have  much  fault  to  find  with  many  of  our  author’s  statemeols 
during  this  period;  but,  strange  to  say,  we  have  little  cause  to  blame  his 
Right  Reverend  editor.  This  probably  arises  from  the  fact  that  his 
lordship,  exhausted  perhaps  by  his  previous  labors  in  the  field  of  history, 
rests  his  wearied  mind  during  these  364  years  somewhat  after  the  manner 
of  the  seven  sleepers  of  old.  The  four  small  notes  which  he  has  dropped 
might  have  been  penned  inier  somnum  et  vigiUas,  for  all  the  importance 
they  possess,  or  the  information  they  convey  !  One  of  them  seems  to 
have  been  written,  when  he  was  just  beginning  to  awake  from  a  horrid 
dream  of  papal  tyranny  and  “Romish”  abominations.  We  must  record 
this  incoherent  “  note  of  a  dreamer,”  and  then  we  will  leave  his  lordship 
to  enjoy  his  slumbers  undisturbed. 

Mr.  Palmer  had,  in  the  text,  praised  the  refusal  of  the  Greek  church  to 
submit  to  the  primacy  of  Rome.^  The  episcopal  note-maker  here  breaks 
forth  in  the  following  pious  strain  : 

“  It  ought  not  to  be  overlooked,  how  the  providence  of  God  thus 
made  the  Roman  attempts  at  usurpation  (!)  provide  an  insuperable  bar 

2  Pages  120,  121  3  Page  130 


1  Prom  p.  106  —  146. 


52 


CHURCH  HISTORY. 

to  the  subsequent  claim  of  Catholicity  to  Romish  (!)  corruptions  in 
doctrine  and  practice.  The  latter  might  have  become  universal  but  for 
the  hostility  awakened  by  the  former.”* 

We  will  pass  over  the  rhetoric  of  this  passage.  Now  for  the  logic. 
If  the  “  Romish  ”  Church  was  not  then  Catholic,  pray  what  church 
was  ?  Was  the  Greek  church,  —  confined  as  it  certainly  was  to  a  com- 
*  paratively  small  portion  of  the  earth, — endowed  with  this  attribute 

of  universality  ?  Though  even  this  would  not  be  so  palpably  absurd,  as 
the  pretension  of  the  Anglican  church  to  be  the  Church  Catholic  1  As 
well  might  Bishop  Whittingham  pretend  that  Maryland  is  the  whole 
world !  Or  had  the  Catholic  Church,  which  the  bishop  professes  to 
believe  in,  as  often  as  he  recites  either  of  the  two  creeds  still  held  by  his 
church,  vanished  entirely  from  the  face  of  the  earth  ?  What  then  becaine 
of  the  solemn  promis'es  of  Christ  ?  Besides  it  is  truly  unfortunate  for 
the  worthy  editor’s  argument,  that  the  Greek  church  then  held,  and  still 
holds  those  identical  “  corruptions  in  doctrine  and.  practice  ”  which  so 
much  excite  his  bile  against  the  “  Romish”  Church  ;  and,  as  far  at  least 
as  these  are  concerned,  she  agreed  and  yet  agrees  with  the  Roman 
Church.  Perhaps  the  obstinate  repugnance  of  the  Greeks  to  the 
shaving  of  the  beard,  and  to  the  use  of  hogs’  lard  by  the  monks, 
destroyed  the  Catholicity  of  the  Church  1  We  had  quite  forgotten  this  ! 
We  give  it  up  ! 

We  will  now  glance  rapidly  at  some  of  the  leading  inaccuracies  of 
our  historian  in  matters  of  fact.  Speaking  of  the  primacy,  he  uses  this 
sweeping  language: — 

“As  for  the  eastern  churches  they  rejected  and  denied  this  novel(!) 
doctrine  which  was  never  declared  to  be  an  article  of  faith  by  any 
general  synod  ;  for  the  synod  of  Lyons,  in  which  this  doctrine  was 
advanced  by  the  ambassadors  of  the  Greek  emperor  to  gratify  the  Pope, 
and  by  some  Greek  bishops  who  acted  under  intimidation  ;  and  the  synod 
of  Florence,  in  which  it  was  forced  on  those  Greek  bishops  who  were 
present,  were  rejected  by  the  Greek  church.  The  latter  synod,  indeed, 
was  of  doubtful  authority  even  in  the  west,  as  it  consisted  only  of  Italian 
bishops,  while  the  rival  synod  of  Basle  was  sitting  at  the  same  time.”^ 

There  are  at  least  six  palpable  misstatements  in  this  extract,  besides 
other  smaller  ones  expressed  or  implied. 

1.  It  is  not  true,  that  this  was  a  novel  doctrine,  as  we  have  already 
shown.  2.  It  is  not  true,  that  this  article  was  not  defined  by  any  general 
synod  :  it  had  been  expressly  declared  to  be  the  faith  of  the  Church,  and 
had  been  acted  on  as  such,  in  every  one  of  the  six  first  general  councils, 
which  our  author  himself  admits  to  have  been  oecumenical.  This  we 
have  also  seen.  3.  It  is  not  true  that  the  Greek  church,  at  least  at  first, 
rejected  the  general  synod  —  the  second  of  Lyons  —  held  in  1274.  They 
subsequently  refused  to  admit  its  authority,  but  they  had  already  approved 
of  it,  through  their  regular  representatives  at  the  council.  4.  The  same 
must  be  said  of  the  council  of  Florence,  which  was  only  subsequently 

1  Note.  ibid.  2  Page  116. 


THE  MIDDLE  AGES. 


63 


1  ejected  by  the  Greeks,  chiefly  through  the  perfidious  conduct  of  Mark, 
bisliop  of  Ephesus.  This  instability  of  the  Greeks  only  proved  the 
proverbial  Greek  faith  — the  Grceca  Jides  ;  but  it  did  not  invalidate  the  acts 
of  the  councils  in  question,  any  more  than  the  rejection  of  the  first  general 
council  of  Nice  by  the  Arians  had  rendered  null  its  doctrinal  decisions. 

5.  There  is  no  evidence  to  prove  that,  in  the  general  council  of  Lyons, 

“  the  ambassadors  of  the  Greek  emperor  ”  advocated  the  primacy  to 
“gratify  the  Pope,”  or  that  in  it  “  the  Greek  bishops  acted  under 
intimidation.”  This  is  all  a  paltry  suspicion  unworthy  of  an  historian. 
This  same  council  of  Lyons  was  one  of  the  most  numerous  that  was 
ever  convened :  it  was  composed  of  five  hundred  bishops,  both  Latin 
and  Greek,  besides  one  thousand  abbots  and  distinguished  divines  :  and 
it  certainly  clearly  represented  the  whole  Church. 

G.  It  is  not  true,  that  the  council  of  Florence  “was  of  doubtful 
authority,  even  in  the  west.”  The  “  rival  synod  of  Basle  ”  had  degene¬ 
rated  into  a  schismatical  conventicle,  which  had  very  few  adherents  ; 
and  the  whole  western  Church  very  soon  after  received  the  decrees  of 
the  Florentine  council.  Its  canons  were  universally  viewed  as  having 
e.manated  from  a  general  council ;  at  least  those  which  had  been  enacted 
before  the  departure  of  the  Greek  bishops ;  — including  the  famous 
definition  on  the  primacy,  which  was  signed  by  the  bishops  of  both  the 
Greek  and  Latin  churches.  It  is  not  true,  that  this  synod  “  consisted 
only  of  Italian  bishops ;  ”  the  Greek  church  was  certainly  represented  in 
it  by  some  of  its  bishops  ;  and  after  the  departure  of  these,  the  Armenian 
and  Jacobite,  and  subsequently  the  Abyssinian  bishops  sanctioned  its 
decrees,  and  were  re-united  to  the  Roman  Church.*  Were  not  the  six 
general  councils  which  Mr.  Palmer  receives,  composed  almost  entirely 
of  Greek  bishops  ?  Was  the  Latin  Church  as  fully  represented  in  any  • 
of  them,  as  was  the  Greek  Church  in  those  of  Lyons  and  Florence  ? 

We  should  be  endless  were  we  to  undertake  the  refutation  of  all  the 
historical  blunders,  which  our  author  has  scattered  over  the  pages  that 
treat  of  this  epoch.  Here,  for  instance,  is  another  curious  extract  from 
the  same  page  as  the  one  just  given  : 

“  The  synod  of  Florence,  just  alluded  to,  was  the  first  which  taught 
the  doctrine  of  purgatory  as  an  article  of  faith.  It  {^not  the  synod,  but 
the  doctrine)  had  indeed  been  held  by  the  Popes  and  by  many  writers  ; 
and  it  became  the  popular  doctrine  during  the  period  under  review  ;  but 
it  was  not  decreed  by  any  authority  of  the  universal,  or  even  the  whole 
Latin  Church.  In  the  eastern  church  it  was  always  rejected.” 

Even  admitting,  for  the  sake  of  argument,  that  the  council  of  Florence 
was  the  first  which  defined  this  doctrine  as  an  article  of  faith,  would  it 
thence  follow  that  the  doctrine  itself  was  of  recent  origin  ?  It  could 
only  be  inferred  that  it  was  never  before  questioned  ;  and  that,  therefore, 
there  was  no  need  of  any  definition  on  the  subject.  Would  it  follow 
from  the  fact,  that  the  council  of  Nice  was  the  first  general  synod  which 

1.  Cabassutius,  Notitia  Jicclesiastiea.  in  Concilia  Lugduii.  II,  et  Ploreatiaum. 

12 


54 


CHURCH  HISTORY. 


defined  the  doctrine  of  the  consubstantiality  of  the  Son  with  the  Father, 
that  this  too  was  a  new  doctrine,  unknown  to  the  three  previous  centuries  ? 
Mr.  Palmer  himself  admits,  that  this  tenet  of  purgatory  “  had  become 
the  popular  doctrine  during  the  period  under  review;”  which,  in 
connection  with  the  solemn  promises  of  Christ  to  guard  his  Church 
from  error,  clearly  proves  that  it  was  an  article  of  divine  revelation, — 
on  the  principles.even  of  our  Oxford  divine! 

It  is  not  true,  that  “  it  was  always  rejected  in  the  eastern  church.” 
The  Greek  church  admitted  it  in  the  council  of  Florence,  and,  at  least, 
impliedly,  in  that  of  Lyons.  It  had  never  been  a  bar  to  union  between 
the  churches,  however  their  theologians  may  have  differed  on  the 
secondary  question,  —  whether  the  souls  detained  in  this  middle  place  of 
temporary  expiation,  are  purified  by  a  material  fire  ?  The  ancient  fathers, 
both  of  the  Greek  and  Latin  Church,  who  had  occasion  to  refer  to  the 
subject,  had  unanimously  agreed  in  maintaining  the  doctrine,  as  could  be 
easily  shown  by  reference  to  their  works.'  All  the  ancient  liturgies  of 
both  churches  had  embodied  this  same  article  of  faith.  And  even  at 
present,  not  only  the  Greek  church,  but  all  the  oriental  sectaries  still 
hold  it  as  doctrine,  and  practice  accordingly. 

We  are  prepared  to  prove  all  this,  and  more  besides.  Let  Bishop 
Whittingham  only  deny  one  of  these  facts,  and  we  promise  him  proof  to 
his  heart’s  content. 

We  are  also  amply  provided  with  proof  to  establish  the  falsity  of  the 
following  statement,  which  we  merely  give  as  a  specimen  of  Oxford  skill 
in  mystification  : 

“The  council  of  Lateran  (the  foiirth  of  that  name,  A.  D.  1215,) 
indeed,  had  made  use^of  the  word  transubstantiation  to  express  the 
change  by  which  the  bread  and  wine  become  the  sacrament  of  Christ’s 
body  and  blood  ;  but  this  word  might  be,  and  in  fact  was,  used  in 
many  senses  inconsistent  with  the  Romish  interpretation  of  it ;  and  the 
object  of  the  synod  itself  seems  to  have  been  merely  to  establish  the  old 
doctrine  of  the  presence  and  reception  of  Christ’s  body  and  blood  in  the 
sacrament,  in  opposition  to  the  Manichean  errors.” 

This  is,  indeed,  a  curious  piece  of  absurdity.  It  is  worthy  of  Dr. 
Pusey  himself.  So  Rome,  we  presume,  must  go  to  Oxford,  before  she 
can  learn  her  own  doctrines  aright !  This  same  doctrine  of  transub¬ 
stantiation,  besides  being  perhaps  the  clearest  of  all  the  doctrines 
contained  in  the  Bible,  could  be  also  established  by  whole  volumes  of 
ancient  testimony.^ 

Our  historian  tells  us  the  truth,  —  who  would  have  thought  it?  — 
about  the  doctrine  of  indulgences  ;  but  he  complains,  singularly  enough, 
that  their  too  great  extension  ruined  the  ancient  penitential  discipline  of 
the  Church  : 

1.  See  their  tesHiiioriies  accuiiiulated  in  the  “  Faith  of  ('atholies,”  sup-  cit.  See  also  tiie  learned 
work  of  the  Greek,  I;eo  Allatiua  — “  I)e  (’onaeiisu  Orientalis  Eei-lesiae,  &c.,  in  dosimare  I'nreatorii.” 
1  Vol.  r2aio.  This  work  exhausts  the  sul>ject.  Wonder  if  Mr.  Calmer  ever  heard  of  thi.s  learned 
publication!  2  See  “  Faith  of  the  Catholics.”  —  sup.  cU. 


THE  MIDDLE  AGES. 


65 


The  plenary  indulgence  which  the  Popes  issued,  first  to  the  crusadei’s, 
but  afterwards  to  many  other  persons,  completed  the  ruin  of  the  penitential 
discipline  of  the  Church.  These  indulgences,  or  pardons,  were  the 
remission  of  the  lengthened  works  of  penitence  imposed  by  the  ancient 
canons.  All  that  was  necessary  to  obtain  them,  was  to  confess  to  a 
priest  all  past  sins  (with  true  sorrow  and  purpose  of  amendment,  wo 
add,)  to  go  to  the  crusade  in  Palestine  or  in  some  other  country,  or  to 
perform  some  other  work  assigned  by  the  Pop^.”‘ 

One  would  think  that  this  all  was  a  great  deal.  Protestants  have 
granted  a  much  more  ample  indulgence  than  this  :  —  they  have  abolished 
penitential  works  altogether,  and  with  them  eveiry  thing  that  is  in  any 
way  painful  to  human  nature  !  Theirs  is  at  least  a  very  easy  way  to 
heaven,  provided  it  be  only  safe.  They  —  the  Anglican  “Church 
Catholic”  (!)  always  included  —  have  swept  oflf  entirely,  at  one  fell 
stroke,  the  whole  ancient  “  penitential  system  of  the  Church.”  Why 
does  not  Mr.  Palmer,  and  why  does  not  the  Protestant  bishop  of  Maryland, 
make  some  effort  to  restore  this  same  ancient  penitential  system  ? 

Our  author  says,  that  the  scapular  “was  now  worn  by  some  persons 
as  a  sort  of  charm ;  — we  thought  it  was  worn  only  as  a  badge  of 

a  pious  confraternity.  He  ridicules  the  idea  of  the  commutation  of 
one  penance  for  another,  and  laughs  at  St.  Peter  Damian  for  affirming, — 
for  which  fact  we  have  only  his  bare  word,  —  “  that  the  repetition  of  the 
psalter  twenty  times  accompanied  by  discipline  (that  is,  scourging,)  was 
equal  to  a  hundred  years  of  penitence.”^  This  he^calls  an  ingenious 
way  of  “paying  the  debt.”"*  Protestants  have  discovered  a  far  more 
ingenious  way  of  paying  this  same  debt  of  penance,  —  they  have 
repudiated  it  altogether  1 

He  cannot  bear  the  idea  of  “  sackcloth  or  haircloth  worn  next  the  skin, 
by  way  of  voluntary  mortification.”*  It  is  absolutely  shocking  to  his 
delicate  nerves,  only  to  think  of  this  cruel  infliction  !  I*Ior  can  he  relish 
the  devotion  of  the  rosary,  introduced  by  St.  Dominic.  The  Protestant 
sense  of  smell  has  become,  alas  !  too  obtuse  to  perceive  the  delightful 
fragrance  of  this  sweet  chaplet  of  roses,  woven  in  honor  of  her,  — “the 
pure  and  holy  one,” — who  is 

“Our  tainted  nature’s  solitary  boast.”® 

Though,  in  truth,  the  honor  is  given  chiefly  to  her  divine  Son,  from 
whom  all  her  beauty  is  borrowed,  and  on  whom  it  is  again  reflected 
back.  “The  sensual  man  perceiveth  not  the  things  which  are  of  the 
Spirit  of  God :  for  it  is  foolishness  to  him,  and  he  cannot  understand ; 
because  it  is  spiritually  examined.”^ 

Our  author  complains  of  the  power  of  the  Popes  during  this  period  ; 
he  denominates  it  “  the  grand  and  crying  evil  of  these  ages.”®  He  tells 
us  two  or  three  “  rousing  ”  ones,  about  the  sainted  Gregory  VII;®  which 
he  would  have  himself  detected  as  such,  had  he  only  opened  the  life  of 

1  P.  138.  2  P.  142.  3  P.  141.  4  Ibid.  6  P.  142. 

6  WoriBworth.  7  1  Cor.  ii,  14.  8  P.  132  9  p.  133 


56 


CHURCH  HISTORY. 


this  great  Pontiff,  lately  written  by  the  Protestant  historian,  Voigt.  He 
gives  us  an  absolutely  incredible  account  of  some  disputes  between  the 
Pope  and  the  bishops  of  England:'  but  he  takes  special  care  not  to  give 
us  the  name  of  the  Pope  in  question,  though  we  guess  he  means  the 
great  Innocent  IV. ;  nor  does  he  furnish  any  authority  whatever  for 
his  statement.  We  enter  a  simple  denial  of  the  entire  account,  and 
challenge  proof.  The  author,  in  fact,  seems  to  become  absolutely 
unsettled  in  mind,  whenever  the  Popes  and  his  own  dear  England  come 
into  collision ;  or  even  when,  without  coming  into  actual  conflict,  they 
appear  at  all  on  the  arena. 

He  should  have  borne  in  mind,  that,  but  for  the  efforts  of  the  Popes, 
and  for  the  power  they  acquired  in  temporal  matters  by  the  free  consent 
of  the  European  nations,  Europe  would,  in  all  human  probability,  never 
have  arisen  from  barbarism  nor  progressed  in  civilization.  That  power 
was  almost  always  put  in  requisition  to  check  tyranny,  and  to  succor  the 
oppressed.  The  voice  of  Rome  liberated  the  captive,  struck  off  the 
chains  of  the  serf,  cheered  the  oppressed,  and  struck  terror  into  the 
hearts  of  tyrants.  Protestants  have  admitted  all  this. 

Though  we  have  marked  many  other  passages  for  animadversion,  yet 
WO  must  here  close  our  imnerfeot  notice  of  the  present  epoch. 

1  F.  135,  et  seq. 


III.  CHURCH  HISTORY.* 


ARTICLE  in. — THE  REFORMATION  AND  SINCE. 


Necessity  of  calm  impartiality  —  Protestant  and  Catholic  views  of  reformation  —  Wickliffe  and 
Huss  —  Oriental  languages  —  Foreign  and  British  reformation  —  Luther  and  Carlostadt  Curious 

anachronism  - Luther  and  Episcopacy  —  Anglican  branch  of  the  reformation  — Scruples  of 

Henry  VIII.” — The  new  Gospel  light — The  Anglican  Pope  —  Royal  prerogative  predominant  — 
Cromwell  Vicar  General — Base  .servility  of  first  Anglican  Bishop.s — Fisher  and  Moore  —  Burning 
Protestants  and  Catholics  —  Palmer’s  theory  of  Anglican  reformation  examined  —  Downright 
tyranny — Trait  of  noble  independence  —  Edward  VI.  —  Slarried  clergy — Improvements  of 
Anglican  liturgy  —  Return  to  unity  under  Mary  —  Bull  of  St.  Pius  V.  —  Henry’s  divorce  —  Refor- 
marion  in  Ireland  —  How  the  Anglican  church  was  persecuted  in  Ireland  — Dr.  Lingard’s  testimony 
and  proofs  —  .Anglican  saints —  Ridley  —  McCauley’s  portrait  of  Cranmer  —  A  parallel  —  Infidelity 
of  Protestant  origin — Anglican  infidels  —  Suppression  of  Anglican  convocation — Church  and 
state — Where  Voltaire  learnetl  infidelity  —  Infidels  in  Protestant  Europe  —  French  clergy  during 
the  Revolution  —  Did  the  French  Revolution  make  any  Protestant  martyrs  ?  — Conclusion*. 

We  have  now  reached  the  fifth  and  last  epoch  of  Church  History, 
according  to  Mr.  Palmer’s  division.  It  embraces  the  period  intervening 
between  the  year  1517,  —  the  date  of  the  reformation,  so  called^  —  and 
the  year  1839,  —  when  our  historian’s  work  was  published. 

This  is  the  most  important  and  exciting  era  of  ecclesiastical  history. 
It  is  difficult  to  approach  it  with  that  even  temper  of  mind,  which  is 
absolutely  necessary  to  form  a  right  judgment  on  its  many  startling 
events.  Men  are  too  apt  to  view  these  through  the  medium  of  their 
preconceived  opinions ;  and  we  are  not  at  all  astonished  that  our  Oxford 
historian,  who  had  already  given  so  much  evidence  of  deep  prejudice, 
should  here  have  exhibited  himself  the  thorough  partisan.  He  hazards 
the  following  opinion  as  to  the  general  character  of  this  whole  period  ;  — 

“  Fifthly,  the  epoch  (1517  —  1839)  when  a  reformation  being  called 
for,  was  resisted  by  those  who  ought  to  have  promoted  it  ;  when  the 
western  Church  became  divided ;  and  at  length  infidelity  came  to 
threaten  universal  destruction.” ‘ 


We  would  have  drawn  a  different  picture  altogether  of  the  period  in 
question.  We  would  have  designated  it  as  the  epoch  when  a  reformation 
having  been  called  for  in  a  violent  and  tumultuous  manner,  —  by  persons 
too  who  wished,  under  pretext  of  reform,  to  undermine  the  ancient  faith, 
and  who  could  not  aoree  amonii:  themselves  as  to  the  nature  or  measure 

O  O 

of  the  reformation  asked  for  ;  —  the  demand  was  met  by  the  Church  in 


*.4  Compendious  Ecclesiastical  History,  from  the  earliest  period  to  the  present  time.  By 
the  Rev.  William  Palmer,  M.  A.,  of  Worce.ster  College,  Oxford.  With  a  Preface 
and  Notes,  by  an  American  Editor.  New  York,  1841,  republished.  1  Vol.,  l2mo. 
pp.  228. 


1  P.  5.  sup  eit. 


57 


68 


CHURCH  HISTORY. 


the  only  legal  way,  —  by  convening  a  general  council  to  decide  on  the 
doctrinal  points  called  in  question,  and  to  devise  the  most  suitable 
remedies  for  existing  evils  in  local  discipline  or  morals ;  —  when  the 
decisions  of  this  council  having  been  rejected  by  those  who  had  clamored 
for  reform,  and  who  had  themselves  appealed  to  its  authority,  these 
became  estranged  from  the  Church,  and  split  up  into  sects  almost 
innumerable  ;  —  and  when  finally  the  unsettling  of  faith,  caused  by  this 
multiplication  of  sects,  led  men  naturally  to  the  frightful  abyssof  infidelity. 
This  picture  is  much  more  conformable  to  the  facts  of  history,  even  as 
Mr.  Palmer  reads  them  ;  and  this  we  hope  to  prove  in  the  course  of  the 
present  paper. 

Of  Wickliffe  and  Huss,  the  boasted  precursors  of  the  reformation,  our 
author  writes  as  follows  : 

**  Wickliffe  had,  in  the  preceding  century,  declaimed  against  the  Popes 
and  against  several  abuses,  and  he  was  closely  followed  by  Huss  and 
Jerome  of  Prague  :  but  their  opinions  were  mingled  with  much  that 
was  exceptionable,  and*  they  seem  to  have  been  unfitted  rightly  to 
conduct  the  mighty  work  of  reformation.*” 

This  is  a  very  mild  censure  of  men  who  were  firebrands  in  society, 
and  whose  principles  led  directly  to  sedition,  and  to  the  breaking  up  of 
all  social  order.  But  still,  mild  as  was  the  reproof,  it  seems  greatly  to 
have  shocked  the  sensibility  of  Bishop  Whittingham,  who  here  drops 
this  little  note  :  “  More  ought  to  have  been  said  of  this  great  precursor 
of  the  reformation.”^  We  think  ourselves  that  the  great  Captain  of  the 
Lollards  was  treated  with  some  neglect  by  the  Puseyite  historian  ;  and 
merely  to  satisfy  the  bishop,  we  will  here  give  a  few,  out  of  the  many 
strange  doctrines,  broached  by  this  great  precursor  of  the  reformation. 
They  are  taken,  almost  at  random,  from  a  list  of  forty-five  propositions 
extracted  from  his  writings,  and  condemned  in  the  council  of  Constance,® 
in  1415. 

“  Prop.  IV.  If  a  bishop  or  priest  be  in  the  state  of  mortal  sin,  he 
does  not  validly  ordain,  nor  consecrate,  nor  administer  the  sacraments, 
nor  baptize. 

“Prop.  VI.  God  ought  to  obey  the  devil.  (!)'* 

“Prop.  XXVII.  All  things  happen  througli  absolute  necessity. 

“Prop.  XXIX.  Universities,  places  for  study,  colleges,  taking  out 
degrees,  (^graduationes)  and  professorships,  were  borrowed  from  paganism, 
and  are  of  as  much  profit  to  the  Church  as  the  devil.  (!) 

“  Prop.  XXXII.  To  endow  the  clergy  is  against  the  law  of  Christ. 

“  Prop.  XLIII.  Oaths  are  unlawful,  when  tliey  are  taken  to  confirm 
contracts  among  men,  or  for  commercial  purposes.” 

We  wish  the  bishop  much  joy  of  his  “great  precursor,”  who  seems 
to  have  had  a  wonderful  taste  for  letters,  and  to  have  taken  a  strano-e 
fancy  for  the  evil  one  !  The  bishop  would  do  well,  before  he  attempt  to 
administer  the  sacraments  in  future,  or  to  make  his  visitation,  to  examine 

1  P.  146.  2  Ibid.  3  Seesione  VIII.  4  Deus  debet  obedire  diabolo. 


THE  REFORMATION  AND  SINCE. 


59 


carefully  whether  he  be  in  the  state  of  sin,  otherwise  his  acts  might  be 
wholly  invalid  ;  and  if  he  have  any  worldly  gear,  we  would  advise  him 
by  all  means  to  give  it  to  the  poor  without  delay,  as  he  would  be  else 
sinninfiT  ao’ainst  the  law  of  Christ ! 

Among  the  causes  which  prepared  the  way  for  the  reformation,  Mr. 
Palmer  places  the  following  ;  — 

“  The  introduction  of  the  Greek  and  Hebrew  languages  (entirely 
unknown  during  the  middle  ages)  rendered  the  study  of  the  Scriptures  ' 
in  the  original  languages  possible.”^ 

In  the  assertion  made  in  parenthesis,  there  is  either  a  woful  ignorance 
of  history,  or  a  willful  misstatement.  The  Oxford  divine  may  select 
between  these  two  horns  of  the  dilemma:  —  there  is  no  escape.  We 
might  accumulate  evidence  to  prove,  that  not  only  the  Greek  and  Hebrew, 
but  other  oriental  languages,  were  cultivated  to  a  considerable  extent 
during  the  middle  ages.  Is  Mr.  Palmer  ignorant  of  the  fact,  that 
Cassiodorus,  as  early  as  the  sixth  century,  revived  the  study  of  Greek 
literature  in  Italy,  and  that  Theodorus,  archbishop  of  Canterbury, 
introduced  the  same  study  into  England,  in  the  seventh  century  ?  Can 
he  have  been  ignorant  that  many  men,  during  that  whole  period,  copied 
and  collated  the  Greek  and  Hebrew  manuscripts  of  the  holy  Scriptures  ? 
Has  it  wholly  escaped  him,  that,  about  the  year  1285,  Pope  Honorius 
IV.,  founded,  in  the  university  of  Paris,  a  distinct  professorship  for  the 
cultivation  of  the  oriental  languages,  with  a  view  to  prepare  missionaries 
for  the  provinces  of  Asia;^  and  that  Pope  Clement  V.,  in  1311,  founded 
professorships  of  Hebrew,  Greek,  Arabic,  and  Syriac  ?  How,  in  fact, 
could  the  missions. of  the  east,  which  we  know  flourished  greatly  in  the 
thirteenth  and  fourteenth  centuries,  have  been  carried  on  at  all,  without 
an  extensive  acquaintance  with  the  oriental  languages  ? 

Our  historian  speaks  very  differently  of  what  he  calls  the  “foreign 
reformation,”^  and  of  that  which  took  place  in  the  British  churches. 
He  finds  much  to  censure  in  the  former,  more  however  as  to  its  manner 
than  its  matter  ;  the  latter  is  entirely  after  his  own  heart.  We  said  in 
our  first  paper,  that  his  book  was  Church  History  set  to  Puseyism  ;  and 
his  whole  account  of  the  reformation,  both  on  the  continent  and  in 
England,  affords  a  clear  proof  of  our  assertion.  He  grievously  misstates 
on  almost  every  page.  We  have  not  space  to  notice,  much  less  to  refute 
all  his  errors  in  matters  of  fact.  We  will  briefly  unfold  his  theory,  and 
then  advert  to  some  of  his  more  egregious  blunders. 

He  laments  the  manner  in  which  the  foreign  reformation  commenced: — 

“At  lenofth  the  reformation  began;  but  not  as  it  could  have  been  desired  : 
not  promoted  by  the  heads  of  the  church,  not  regulated  by  the  decrees 
of  councils.”'' 

1  Pages  146 — 7. 

2  It  is  but  fair,  liowever,  to  say,  that  this  design  of  the  enlightened  Pontiff  was  not  immediately 
carried  into  full  execution,  at  least  in  tlie  university  of  Paris. 

8  That  in  Germany,  and  on  the  continent  of  Europe. 


4  P.  174. 


60 


CHURCH  HISTORY. 


After  having  spoken  of  the  papal  bull  against  Luther,  he  remarks : — 

“Luther  and  his  friends  Melancthon,  Carlostadt,  and  all  who  were  of 
the  same  sentiments,  were  thus  separated  from  the  communion  of  the 
Pope,  and  of  his  adherents  in  Germany  not  voluntarily,  or  by  their 
own  act.”‘ 

A  little  further  on  he  says  : — 

“  It  is  to  be  lamented,  however,  that  the  Lutherans  after  a  time  forgot 
that  their  system  was  merely  provisional,  and  designed  only  to  last  till  a 
general  council  could  be  lawfully  assembled.  They  then  began  to  pretend 
that  their  ancestors  had  separated  voluntarily  from  the  western  church, 
and  justified  this  act  by  reasons  which  sanctioned  schism  and  separation 
generally.”^ 

These  passages  exhibit  the  gist  of  his  theory.  Perhaps  the  reader 
will  incline  to  the  opinion,  that  the  Lutherans  were  much  better  judges 
of  their  real  position  than  the  Oxford  divine.  If  the  latter  has  read 
history  aright,  he  must  have  come  to  the  conclusion,  that  Rome  had 
exhausted  every  expedient  of  clemency  and  forbearance,  ere  she  struck 
the  blow  which  separated  the  adherents  of  Luther  from  the  Catholic 
Church  ;  and  that  even  after  the  bull  had  been  fulminated,  she  left  no 
means  untried  to  reclaim  those  deluded  men  who  were  obstinately  bent 
on  separation.  For  this  purpose  embassy  after  embassy  was  sent  into 
Germany  ;  nor  did  this  commendable  solicitude  cease  until  after  the  year 
1535,  when  the  outrageous  treatment  by  Luther  of  the  legate  Vergerio, 
sent  by  Pope  Paul  III.,  cutoff  all  hopes  of  conciliation.^  The  appeal  by 
Luther  to  a  general  council, —  as  the  event  proved, —  was  merely  a  crafty 
expedient  to  gain  time :  his  real  and  fixed  purpose,  almost  from  the 
beginning,  was  to  force  a  separation  from  the  Church  ;  and  not  all  the 
efforts  of  the  Roman  Pontiffs  and  of  the  general  council  of  Trent 
subsequently  convened,  could  prevent  this  unhappy  result. 

The  reader,  who  is  at  all  conversant  with  the  history  of  those  times, 
can  scarcely  repress  a  smile  when  he  hears  it  gravely  asserted,  that 
“Luther  and  his  friend  Carlostadt  were  of  the  same  sentiments.”  They 
agreed  about  as  well  as  fire  and  water ;  and  the  same  may  be  said  of  all 
the  leading  reformers.  It  would  puzzle  even  a  Puseyite  to  reconcile  Mr. 
Palmer’s  assertion,  that  the  bull  of  excommunication  against  Luther  was 
fulminated  in  the  year  1521,'*  with  the  notorious  fact,  that  Luther  had 
burned  this  same  bull  at  Wittemberg  on  the  10th  of  December,  in  the 
previous  year  1520  !  Still  greater  ingenuity  would  be  required  to 
reconcile  our  author’s  flippant  assertion,  that  “  episcopacy  was  never 
rejected  by  the  Lutherans,”®  with  the  certain  fact,  that  Luther,  the  father 
of  the  sect,  was  violently  opposed  to  it  during  his  whole  life,  and  wrote 
a  most  inflammatory  work  against  it.®  This,  with  some  other  Avorks  of  a 
similar  character,  drew  from  the  Protestant  historian  Hallam  the  pungent 

1  Ibid.  2  P.  150.  3  See  Audio’s  Life  of  Luther,  p.  47'2,  ei  seq. 

4  P.  147.  6  P.  150. 

6  ‘Contra  falso  nominatum  ordinem  episcoporum.  Though  leveled  chiefly  at  the  Catholic  bishopH, 
this  violent  pamphlet  aims  at  nothing  less  than  the  destruction  of  the  episcopacy  itself. 


THE  REFORMATION  AND  SINCE. 


61 


remark,  that  the  arch-reformer’s  writings  were  little  more  than  “a 
bellowinof  in  bad  Latin.” 

O 

For  the  special  edification  of  Mr.  Palmer’s  admirers,  we  will  give  one 
short  extract  from  the  publication  of  Luther  just  alluded  to  : 

“  Listen,  bishops ;  listen,  you  vampires  and  devils !  The  Doctor  comes 
to  read  for  you  a  bull,  which  will  make  your  ears  tingle.  The  bull  of 
Doctor  Martin  is  this  :  whoever  aids  with  his  corporal  strength,  or  with 
his  property,  to  destroy  the  episcopacy,  and  slay  the  order  of  bishops,  is 
a  cherished  child  of  God,  and  a  good  Christian.  If  he  cannot  do  that, 
at  least  let  him  condemn  and  avoid  this  body.  Whoever  defends  the 
episcopacy,  or  obeys  its  mandates,  is  a  minister  of  Satan.  Amen.”* 

We  might  remark  on  many  other  false  or  unfair  statements  of  our 
historian  in  reference  to  the  foreign  reformation,  for  which,  notwith¬ 
standing  his  dislike  of  some  of  its  proceeedings,  very  feebly  expressed, 
he  evidently  cherishes  a  sympathetic  feeling.  But  we  must  hasten  on  to 
his  account  of  the  reformation  effected  in  the  “  British  churches,”  under 
which  name  he  includes  those  of  Ireland  and  Scotland.  We  have  already 
remarked,  that  whenever  his  own  dear  England  is  concerned,  he  seems 
to  become  absolutely  unsettled  in  mind  :  and  we  defy  any  one  to  read 
his  very  lengthy  account  of  the  progress  of  the  reformation  in  England, 
Ireland,  and  Scotland,  without  being  convinced  that  a  little  learning  and 
much  bigotry  “  have  made  him  mad.”  He  devotes  two  whole  chapters,** 
extending  through  thirty-eight  pages,  to  this  portion  of  his  history, —  if 
that  can  be  called  a  history,  wlych  is  a  tissue  of  false  statements  almost 
from  beginning  to  end.  His  account  of  what  he  calls  the  “Irish  church,”® 
is  well  worthy  of  the  man,  who  had  the  heartlessness  to  write  the  atrocious 
libel  on  the  Irish  clergy  and  people,  which  sometime  ago  appeared  in  the 
London  Quarterly  Review.  Its  perusal  is  enough  to  make  one’s  blood 
boil  in  his  veins,  even  if  those  veins  are  not  Irish. 

He  gravely  tells  us  of  the  “scruples  of  Henry  VIII.  as  to  the  lawfulness 
of  his  marriage  with  Catharine,  the  widow  of  his  elder  brother,”"*  and 
of  the  manner  in  which  Pope  Clement  VII.  “protracted  the  affair  by 
various  expedients  for  six  years,”  for  which  course  he  can  find  no  better 
motive  than  the  influence  of  the  Emperor  Charles  V.,  Catharine’s  uncle ; 
and  this  wise  delay  of  the  Pontiff  he  can  ascribe  to  naught  but  “  the  arts 
and  chicanery  of  the  court  of  Rome.”®  He  next  proceeds  to  state  that 
6enry  was  sustained  in  his  application  for  divorce  by  “the  universities 
of  Oxford,  Cambridge,  Paris,  Bologna,  Padua,  Orleans,  Angiers, 
Bourges,  Toulouse,  &c.,  and  by  a  multitude  of  theologians  and 
canonists;”  that  the  Pontiff  still  proving  untractable,  Henry  “privately 
married  Anna  Boleyn,”  and  that  “  the  convocation  of  the  church  of 
England  immediately  afterwards  declared  his  former  marriage  null,  and 
approved  that  recently  contracted.”® 

It  is  really  difficult  to  have  patience  with  a  man,  who  thus  glaringly 


1  Cf  Audin  ut  sup.  p.  218. 
8  I*  167,  ct  seq. 

K 


2  Chapters  xxii  and  xxiii,  from  p.  167  to  195. 
6  P.  168—9.  6  Ibid. 


4  P.  158. 


62 


CHURCH  HISTORY, 


perverts,  or  miscolors  the  plainest  facts  of  history.  The  scruples  of 
Henry  the  VIII.,  forsooth !  The  scruples  of  the  man,  who  was 
subsequently  the  murderer  of  his  wives,  and  the  unmitigated  tyrant 
over  his  people  !  The  scruples  of  the  man,  of  whom  it  has  been  truly 
said,  that  he  never  spared  man  in  his  anger,  nor  woman  in  his  lust !” 
The  scruples  of  the  man,  who  wantoned  in  the  sacrilegious  spoliation  of 
the  monasteries  and  sanctuaries  of  religion,  and  whom  all  impartial  men 
of  every  shade  of  opinion  have  long  since  branded  as  the  Nero  of  the 
sixteenth  century !  The  scruples  of  the  man,  who  had  already  lived  in 
perfect  quietude  of  conscience  with  Catharine,  the  best  of  women  and 
most  virtuous  of  wives,  for  eighteen  long  years  !  She  was  a  woman, 
too,  whom  even  he  could  not  accuse  of  any  crime,  except  that  of  having 
grown  old,  and  of  having  presented  him  no  male  issue  ; — a  woman 
whom  even  he  was  compelled  to  respect  to  the  hour  of  her  death  ;  whose 
gentleness,  magnanimity,  and  piety,  extorted  homage  from  all  her 
cotemporaries  and  from  all  posterity ;  and  whose  death  caused  even  him 
to  relent,  to  drop  the  unwilling  tear,  and  to  order  his  whole  court  to  go 
into  mourning ! 

And  then,  how  did  these  pretended  scruples  awaken  in  his  mind,  after 
having  lain  dormant  for  so  many  years  ?  How  did  the  new  gospel  light 
break  upon  his  hitherto  clouded  soul  ?  How  did  he  become  so  very 
scrupulous  all  of  a  sudden  ?  Alas  !  it  is  useless  to  disguise  the  fact ;  ail 
history  proclaims  it,  and  Henry’s  own  conscience  proclaimed  it  to  him  at 
the  time.  As  the  poet  has  caustically,  ,but  truly  said, — 

“  The  gospel  light 
First  beamed  from  Anna  Boleyn’s  eyes  !” 

Tired  of  an  aged  and  virtuous  wife,  the  royal  founder  of  Anglicanism 
panted  for  new  nuptials  with  another,  whose  youthful  charms  had 
already  captivated  his  heart,  and  whose  wily  arts  had  rendered  her 
inexorable  to  his  wishes,  except  on  the  condition  of  supplanting  the 
lawful  queen,  and  becoming  herself  his  queenly  consort.  The  Pontiff 
was  appealed  to,  to  second  the  plan  of  the  English  king,  and  to  grant 
the  necessary  dispensation  :  but  the  Popes  had  never  flattered  the  vices 
of  princes ;  and  in  this  particular  instance,  Clement  VII.  would  not 
consent  to  sacrifice  his  conscience,  to  trample  upon  the  holy  laws  of 
God,  and  to  be  recreant  to  his  duty  towards  a  virtuous  and  much 
injured  woman.  After  protracting  the  affair  for  some  years,  during 
which  he  tried  every  possible  means  to  dissuade  Henry  from  his  purpose, 
he  was  at  length  compelled  to  decide  against  the  divorce,  on  which  the 
English  king  had  already  resolved.  Henry  became  indignant ;  he 
sacrilegiously  usurped  the  office  of  head  of  the  Church  in  England ;  and 
the  majority  of  the  English  bishops,  won  over  by  intrigue,  worn  out  by 
harassing  solicitations,  or  intimidated  by  menaces,  were  weak  enough 
to  sanction  his  wicked  conduct. 

Such  is  the  true  history  of  the  origin  of  the  Anglican  church.  We 


THE  REFORMATION  AND  SINCE. 


63 


wish  it  joy  of  its  first  founder  and  pope  ;  —  for  Henry  usurped  the  office 
of  Pope  in  England,  seized  on  the  first  fruits  of  the  benefices  which  had 
hitherto  been  paid  to  the  Roman  Pontiffs,  and  pushed  his  p)apal  prerogative 
much  farther  than  ever  Pope  had  done  before.  Instead  of  the  mild  and 
paternal  authority  of  the  Roman  Pontiffs,  who  had  ever  been  the 
champions  of  the  poor  and  of  the  oppressed  against  the  rich  and  tyrants,, 
the  Anglican  bishops  had  now  to  wear,  rivited  on  their  necks,  an  iron  yoke 
which  they  themselves  had  aided  to  forge.  The  sovereigns  of  England, 
whether  male  or  female,  whether  infants  or  of  mature  age,  whether  sane 
in  mind  or  idiotic,  thus  became  absolute  both  in  church  and  state  ! 

The  only  barrier  to  their  tyranny  was  removed,  and  the  liberties  of 
England,  which  had  been  established  by  Catholics  three  hundred  years 
before,  now  lay  prostrate  and  crushed. 

The  champions  of  freedom,  both  civil  and  religious,  were  now  doomed 
to  atone  for  their  rashness  with  their  blood.  The  royal  prerogative  now 
became  unlimited  in  its  extent ;  it  swallowed  up  every  other  element 
of  government ;  and  the  parliament  of  England,  once  the  fearless 
advocate  of  popular  rights,  now  crouched  with  mean  servility  at  the  foot 
of  a  tyrant !  And  England  had  to  pass  through  all  the  horrors  of  repeated 
civil  wars  and  oceans  of  bloodshed,  for  one  hundred  and  fifty  years,  ere 
tlie  kingly  power  could  be  again  restrained  within  its  ancient  constitu¬ 
tional  limits,  and  her  parliament  could  again  assert  the  independence, 
which  had  so  strongly  marked  its  proceedings  in  ’the  good  old  days  of 
Catholicity. 

This  picture  is  not  only  not  exaggerated,  but  it  even  falls  short  of  the 
truth,  as  any  one  must  be  convinced  who  has  but  glanced  at  the  pages 
of  English  history.  Mr.  Palmer  tells  us  :  — 

“The  convocation  of  the  clergy  in  1531  had  acknowledged  the  king 
to  be  head  of  the  Church  of  England,  as  far  as  it  is  allowable  by  the 
law  of  God;”^  and  that  “in  virtue  of  this  office,  which  Henry  seems 
to  have  understood  in  a  different  sense  from  that  of  the  convocation,  he 
appointed  Lord  Cromwell  his  vicar  general  and  visiter  of  monasteries,” 

(fec.^ 

A  small  portion  of  the  truth  here  leaks  out.  Had  he  been  disposed 
to  tell  the  whole  truth,  he  would  have  stated,  that  this  same  Lord 
Cromwell,  from  having  been  the  son  of  a  fuller,  had,  by  pandering  to 
Henry’s  passion,  become  the  first  lord  of  the  realm,  —  placed  over  the 
heads  of  all  the  princes  both  spiritual  and  temporal,  and  second  only  to 
the  king  himself !  He  would  have  told  us  of  the  unworthy  arts,  by  which 
this  creeping  creature  slandered  the  inmates  of  the  monasteries,  and 
thus  succeeded  in  seizing  on  their  immense  property ;  a  large  portion 
of  which  he  embezzled  to  his  own  uses,  or  that  of  his  associates  in  the 
sacrilegious  robbery.  He  would  have  told  us,  how  this  same  lay  vicar  '  ’ 
general  lorded  it  over  the  bishops,  and  compelled  them  to  resign  their 


1  P.  160. 


2  Ibid. 


64 


CHURCH  HISTORY. 


authority,  and  to  sue  out  new  episcopal  powers  from  the  crown  :  *  how 
those  bishops  were  servile  enough  to  submit  to  this  exaction,  and  humbiy 
to  lay  their  mitres  at  the  foot  of  the  throne  ;  and  how  the  royal  letters 
patent,  which  contained  tlie  strange  new  episcopal  commission,  assigned 
as  a  reason  for  this  indulgence  granted  to  the  bisliops,  “that  the  king’s 
vicar  general,  on  account  of  the  multiplicity  of  business  with  which  he 
was  loaded,  could  not  be  every  where  present,  and  that  many  inconve¬ 
niences  might  arise,  if  delays  and  interruptions  were  admitted  in  the 
exercise  of  his  authority.”  ^ 

Alas  !  for  the  sycophancy  of  the  first  Anglican  bishops.  How  it 
contrasts  with  the  undaunted  courage  of  the  English  bishops  in  the 
good  old  Catholic  times  !  Where  was  then  the  spirit  of  an  Anselm,  of  a 
Langton,  and  of  a  Thomas  a  Becket  ?  Was  there  no  man  among  the 
English  bishops  of  that  day  ?  There  was  one,  and  but  one,  — we  are 
pained  to  avow  it,  —  a  venerable  octogenarian,  the  cherished  counselor 
of  Henry’s  father,  and  his  own  early  preceptor,  Fisher,  bishop  of 
Rochester  :  —  honor  to  his  gray  hairs  !  He  would  not  sacrifice  his 
conscience  at  the  bidding  of  a  tyrant :  and  his  head,  which  would  not 
bow  to  an  unholy  despotism,  was  struck  ofi*  by  order  of  Henry  !  The 
despot  had  the  heartlessness  to  taunt  this  venerable  man,  who  in 
cosnideration  of  his  transcendent  merits  had  just  been  named  cardinal 
by  Pope  Paul  III.,  with  this  inhuman  jeer  :  “  Paul  may  send  him  the 
hat,  I  will  take  care  that  he  have  never  a  head  to  wear  it  on.”  ’ 

Another  illustrious  hero,  perhaps  the  greatest  man  then  in  England, 
fell  a  victim  to  Henry’s  tyranny.  Sir  Thomas  Moore,  lately  lord 
chancellor  of  England,  would  not  subscribe  to  the  new  doctrine  of  the 
king’s 'supremacy*.  After  a  mock  trial,  in  which  all  the  forms  of  law 
were  openly  set  at  defiance,  he  was  condemned  to  die  the  death  of  a 
traitor.  And  this  hard  lot  befel  every  man,  who  had  the  conscience 
and  the  courage  tojesist  Henry’s  will,  in  this  or  in  any  other  particular! 
Protestants  and  Catholics  were  tied  together  and  burnt  at  the  same 
stake,  if  they  ventured  to  believe  more  or  less  than  suited  the  royal 
standard.  No  one  can,  or  will  even  dare  deny  these  facts  ;  and  yet  we 
hear  men  coolly  talking  of  Henry’s  scruples  ! 

Is  it  possible,  that  a  church,  which  originated  under  these  circum¬ 
stances,  was  the  Church  of  Christ  ?  Is  it  credible,  that  that  was  the 
Church  of  Christ,  which  came  into  existence  at  the  bidding  of  a  tyrant, 
which  changed  in  each  successive  reign  according  to  the  royal  pleasure 
and  the  will  of  the  parliament,  and  the  liturgy  of  which  was  moulded 
and  remoulded,  time  and  again,  according  to  the  caprice  of  the  sovereign, 
male  or  female,  who  chanced  to  be  reigning  at  the  time  ? 

We  know  now  what  value  to  set  on  the  oft  repeated  assertion  of  our 
author,  that  by  the  general  consent  and  voice  of  the  English  bishops 
V  and  clergy,  “  the  ordinary  jurisdiction  of  the  Pope  over  England  was 

1  See  Lingard’s  History  of  England  —  Henry  VIII.,  p.  178.  First  American  edition.  Philadel¬ 
phia,  182 <.  2  Ibid.  3  Lingard,  ibid.  p.  171. 


THE  REFORMATION  AND  SINCE. 


65 


regularly  and  lawfully  suppressed/”  This  is,  in  fact,  according  to  his 
theory,  the  distinguishing  feature  of  the  English  reformation  ;  this  the 
greatest  boast  of  its  advocates.  These  contend  that  the  English  church 
reformed  itself  by  its  own  free  and  spontaneous  act ;  and  that  in  asserting 
its  independence  of  Rome  it  merely  re-esUib’ished  its  ancient  rights. 
We  have  already  seen  how  eniirely  unfounded  is  tlie  pretension  set  forth 
in  the  last  clause.  It  is  easy  to  show  that  the  other  assertion,  on  which 
the  theory  mainly  rests,  is  a  mere  assumption,  wholly  unsiistained  by 
evidence. 

Was  that  a  free  consent,  which  was  extorted  by  menaces,  backed  by 
the  halter  and  the  stake  ?  Was  that  a  regular  and  lawful  proceeding, 
which  was  every  where  marked  by  violence?  The  English  bishops  had 
but  the  alternative  ;  to  subscribe  to  the  supremacy  of  Henry,  or  to  lay'’ 
their  heads  on  the  block.  Most  of  them  chose  the  former,  yet  not 
without  great  and  manifest  i*eluctance.  The  opposition  to  the  arbitrary 
proceedings  of  the  king  and  of  his  vicar  general,  was  both  wide  spread 
and  deeply  seated  ;  but  its  murmurs  were  soon  stifled  in  the  blood  of 
those  who  thus  had  the  courage  even  to  whisper  dissent. 

To  silence  this  opposition,  Henry  issued  injunctions  **  that  the  very 
word  Pojje  should  be  carefully  erased  out  of  all  books  employed  in  the 
public  worship  ;  that  every  schoolmaster  should  diligently  inculcate  the 
new  doctrine  to  the  children  entrusted  to  his  care  ;  that  all  clergymen, 
from  the  bishop  to  the  curate,  should  on  every  Sunday  and  holiday 
teach  that  the  king  was  the  true  head  of  the  Church ;  and  that  the 
authority  hitherto  exercised  by  the  Popes  was  a  usurpation,  tamely 
admitted  by  the  carelessness  or  timidity  of  his  predecessors  ;  and  that 
the  sheriffs  in  each  county  should  keep  a  vigilant  eye  over  the  conduct 
of  the  clergy,  and  should  report  to  the  council  the  names,  not  only  of 
those  who  might  neglect  these  duties,  but  also  of  those  who  might 
perform  them  indeed,  but  tciVA  coldness  and  indifference ^  ^ 

Was  there  ever  tyranny  like  this  ?  We  know  of  scarce!}^  a  parallel  to 
it,  save  in  the  similar  proceedings  which  were  adopted  towards  the 
bishops  and  clergy  in  the  subsequent  reigns  of  Edward  VI.  and  Elizabeth. 
If  there  is  any  truth  in  history,  or  any  reliance  to  be  put  in-  the  statute 
book  of  England,  the  whole  reformation  in  that  country  was  the  offspring* 
of  guilty  passion,  and  the  work  of  violence  and  tyranny.  Had  there 
been  in  that  kino-dom  a  o-reater  number  of  such  men  as  Fisher  and 

O  O 

Moore,  or  had  the  English  bishops  possessed  aught  of  the  spirit  which 
did  so  much  honor  to  many  of  the  monks,  the  bluff'  old  tyrant,  Henry, 
and  his  mischievous  and  barren  progeny, —  Edward  and  Elizabeth — 
might  have  been  foiled  in  their  wicked  attempt  to  break  up  Christian 
unity. 

Everyone  knows  the  noble  reply  of  the  two  friars,  Peyto  and  Elstow, 
to  th<'  barbarous  threat  of  Cromwell  —  “  that  thev  deserved  to  be  enclosed 

1  P.  160 

2  Statute  26  Henry  VIII.,  1.  3,  13.  Wilk.  Con.  iii.  780 — 782.  Apml  lingiird.  zi>id.  p.  168. 

K2  8 


66 


CHURCH  HISTORY. 


in  a  sack  and  thrown  into  the  Thames.”  “  Threaten  these  thinirs.” 
they  said,  “to  rich  and  dainty  folk,  which  are  clothed  in  purple,  faro 
deliciously,  and  have  their  chiefest  hopes  in  this  world.  We  esteem  them 
not.  We  are  joyful,  that  for  the  discharge  of  our  duty  we  are  driven 
hence.  With  thanks  to  God,  we  know  that  the  way  to  heaven  is  as 
short  by  water  as  by  land,  and  therefore  care  not  which  way  we  go.”' 

We  have  not  a  doubt,  that  had  the  monasteries  in  England  been  less 
wealthy,  they  would  never  have  been  suppressed ;  and  that  the  body  of 
English  bishops  would  never  have  apostatized  as  they  did,  had  they  not 
unhappily  belonged  to  the  class  of  “  rich  and  dainty  folk?”  The  wealth 
munificently  bestowed  on  the  Church  by  Catholic  piety  during  the  middle 
ages,  and  which,  before  the  reformation,  had  been  employed  in  erecting 
noble  edifices  to  religion  and  to  charity,  thus  became  ultimately  injurious 
in  its  influence  on  the  English  church.  It  was  a  rich  bait  to  the  avarice 
of  those  who  clamored  for  reform,  and  the  fear  of  its  loss  was  a  powerful 
inducement  to  the  bishops  and  higher  clergy  to  side  with  Henry  VIII. 
The  apostacy  once  consummated,  this  same  mass  of  wealth  was  a  golden 
chain  of  iniquity,  which  strongly  and  sweetly  bound  the  Anglican  bishops 
to  the  new  order  of  things. 

And  we  really  know  of  no  means  by  which  the  Anglican  church  can 
be  again  restored  to  Catholic  unity,  but  the  breaking  of  this  same  chain 
by  the  state,  and  the  abandonment  of  that  church  to  its  own  resources. 
Timid  Puseyism  would  then  probably  ripen  into  open  Catholicism  ;  its 
crooked  ways  would  then  be  made  straight ;  and  its  many  tortuous  wind¬ 
ings  would  give  place  to  the  one  straight  path  which  leads  to  the  holy 
city  of  God.  Till  the  English  church  establishment  be  broken  up,  — 
till  this  great  fountain  of  evil  be  removed,  we  are  far  from  being  sanguine 
in  the  hope,  that  England  is  likely  to  return  to  the  bosom  of  Catholic 
unity.  Here  and  there,  a  disinterested  and  generous  individual  may 
break  his  chains,  and  assert  his  independence  of  a  corrupt  establishment; 
but,  at  least  humanly  speaking,  we  see  little  reason  to  believe  that  this 
blessed  result  will  become  general  in  England. 

We  should  be  endless  were  we  to  notice  all  the  unfounded  and  absurd 
'Statements  of  our  author  on  the  English  reformation.  He  says  : 

“  On  the  death  of  Henry  VIII.,  in  1647,  and  the  accession  of  Edward 

VI.,  the  work  of  the  reformation  proceeded  freely . The  clergy 

•were  permitted  to  marry,  and  the  public  prayers  were  translated  from 
t!ie  old  Latin  offices  of  the  English  church,  with  various  improvements( !) 
from  the  Greek  and  oriental  liturgies.”^ 

The  permission  of  the  clergy  to  marry  was  a  decided  improvement, 
not  only  on  the  ancient  discipline  of  the  Catholic  Church,  but  also  on 
the  example  and  earnest  advice  of  St.  Paul.*  Henry  VIII.,  though  he 
dearly  prized  the  privilege  of  a  young  wife  for  himself,  was  so  cruel  a.s 


1  Apud  Lingard.  ibid.  p.  169. 


2  V  161. 


3  See  1  Cor.  vii,  entire  chapter. 


THE  REFORMATION  AND  SINCE. 


67 


to  deny  this  indulgence  to  his  clergy  but  the  “boy  king,”  it  seems, 
was  more  tender-hearted  I 

The  improvements  in  the  English  liturgy  were  indeed  many  and 
various  :  first,  the  idea  of  the  real  presence  and  of  a  true  sacrifice,  which 
had  been  deemed  essential  to  every  previous  liturgy,  whether  Latin, 
Greek,  or  Oriental,  was  carefully  excluded ;  and  secondly,  the  liturgy 
itself  was  studiously  amended  at  least  three  times,  just  as  the  English 
parliament  happened  to  become  more  enlightened  !  There  was  surely  no 
lack  of  improvement ! 

It  is  really  curious  to  observe,  how  our  author  laments  the  return  of 
the  Anglican  church  to  Catholic  unity  under  Mary.^  The  voluntary 
consent  of  the  parliament  and  bishops;  which  had  “regularly  and  law¬ 
fully”  suppressed  the  power,  of  the  Pope,  was  incompetent,  it  seems,  to 
restore  that  same  power:  the  bishops  who  were  then  put  into  the  sees  which 
had  been  desecrated  by  intruders  under  the  reign  of  Edward  VI.,  were 
themselves  but  “  popish  intruders,”  who,  under  the  “illustrious  Eliza¬ 
beth,  were  expelled  by  the  civil  power  and  under  this  virgin  queen, 
the  Church  of  England  was  again  established  on  a  permanent  basis  ! 
We  scarcely  have  so  poor  an  opinion  of  Mr.  Palmer’s  intellect,  as  to 
suppose,  even  for  a  moment,  that  he  could  really  have  been  serious  while 
writing  out  these  palable  absurdities. 

If  any  thing  can  surpass  the  cool  assurance  of  the  following  passages, 
we  must  say,  that  we  have  not  chanced  to  meet  with  it  in  all  our  reading. 
We  give  them  for  what  they  are  worth  ;  merely  premising,  that  in  the 
first  he  is  speaking  of  the  bull  of  St.  Pius  V.,  which  excommunicated 
Elizabeth  and  her  adherents  :  — 

“  This  bull  caused  the  schism  in  England  ;  for  the  popish  party,  which 
had  continued  in  communion  with  the  Church  of  England  up  to  that 
time,  during  the  eleven  past  years  of  Elizabeth’s  reign,  now  began  to 
separate  themselves.  Bedingfield,  Cornwallis,  and  Silyarde,  were  the 
first  popish  recusants;  and  the  date  of  the  Romanists  in  England,  as  a 
distinct  sect  or  community,  may  be  fixed  in  the  year  1570.” 

“  King  James  I.  wisely  (!)  discouraged  the  Roman  schism,  and  forbade 
the  residence  of  its  bishops,  priests,  and  Jesuits  in  his  dominions  ;  but 
under  his  successor  Charles  I.,  a  relaxation  of  this  wholesome  severity 
encourao-ed  the  schismatics  to  insult  and  disturb  the  Church,  and  ulti- 
mately,  in  1641,  to  massacre  in  cold  blood  one  hundred  and  fifty  thousand 
of  its  adherents,  and  to  break  into  insurrection. 

•  •  ■  ‘ 

We  had  also  intended  to  insert  here  another  extract®  breathing  a  similar 

spirit,  in  which  Mr.  Palmer  clearly  approves  of  the  late  high-handed 
tyranny  of  the  king  of  Prussia  in  imprisoning  some  Catholic  bishops ; 
and  we  had  also  purposed  to  examine  his  flippant  statements  in  regard 
to  the  opinions  of  the  universities  in  the  matter  of  Henry’s  divorce. 
But  want  of  space  compels  us  to  omit  the  former,  and  for  the  latter, 
we  must  be  content  with  a  reference,  in  the  margin,  to  Dr.  Lingard’s 

1  Cranuier,  however,  outwitted  him  in  this. 

2  P.  162.  3  F.  163.  4  P.  170.  6  P.  200. 


68 


CHURCH  HISTORY. 


luminous  proofs  on  the  subject.*  He  abundantly  establishes  the  fact, 
that  the  opinions  of  all  the  universities,  including  the  two  in  England, 
were  obtained  by  bribery,  or  were  reluctantly  given,  after  the  practising, 
by  Henry’s  agents,  of  the  vilest  arts  and  the  lowest  trickery. 

We  must  hasten  on  in  our  rapid  notice  of  Mr.  Palmer’s  statements. 
He  devotes  four  pages'^  to  an  account  of  the  “churches  of  Ireland,”  — 
and  such  an  account !  We  sincerely  believe  that  there  is  nothing  to 
equal  it,  in  reckless  mendacity  and  utter  atrocity,  in  all  the  volumes 
which  the  press  has  sent  forth  since  it  was  first  put  in  operation.  He 
begins  his  history  of  the  reformation  in  Ireland,  in  these  words : 

“  The  churches  of  Ireland  have  been  suffering  severely  from  the 
persecutions  of  Romanists  for  many  years  past.” 

And  he  ends  it  with  this  memorable  passage  : 

“  From  that  period  (1798),  the  Romish  party  has  acquired  great  po¬ 
litical  power,  and  the  church  has  been  almost  continually  pei^ecuted, 
especially  within  the  last  few  years,  in  which  the  clergy  have  been  reduced 
nearly  to  starvation  ;  some  have  been  murdered,  and  many  placed  in 
peril  of  their  lives.  To  add  to  their  afflictions,  the  government,  in  1833, 
suppressed  ten  of  the  bishoprics  on  pretense  of  requiring  their  revenues 
for  the  support  of  ecclesiastical  buildings  ;  although  the  bishops  of  Ireland 
in  a  body  protested  against  such  an  act,  and  offered  to  pay  the  amount 
required  from  the  incomes  of  their  sees,  provided  that  so  great  an  injury 
were  not  done  to  the  cause  of  religion.”^  * 

The  reader  may  judge  of  the  spirit  which  pervades  the  whole  account 
from  these  two  specimens.  Only  think  of  it  !  The  miserable  faction  of 
self-called  reformers,- which  was  thrust  upon  Ireland  by  open  violence, 
and  by  that  government  too  which  has  ever  been  the  most  deadly  enemy 
of  her  dearest  rights,  both  temporal  and  eternal ;  —  the  faction  which  has, 
for  the  last  three  hundred  years,  been  sitting,  like  an  incubus,  upon 
the  green  -ocean  Isle,  weighing  down  her  energies,  and  crushing  her 
people  in  the  dust ; —  the  faction  which  has  been  draining  her  treasure, 
and,  vampire  like,  sucking  her  very  blood;  —  the  faction  which  has 
sowed  religious  dissensions  and  civil  feuds  broadcast  on  her  lovely  soil ; — 
the  faction  which  has  reveled  in  the  misery  and  wretchedness  of  her 
people,  and  wantoned  in  the  blood  of  her  murdered  sons  and  daughters: 
—  this  same  miserable  faction  now  has  the  effrontery  to  stand  forth,  and 
unblushingly  to  cry  out  persecution  !  0  shame  !  0  shame  !  ! 

If  it  was  a  bitter  curse  for  Ireland,  when  the  Saxon  first  set  Yoot  upon 
her  green  soil,  it  was  a  curse  a  hundred  fold  more  dreadful,  when  the 
myrmidons  of  the  reformation  seized  on  and  desecrated  her  beautiful 
churches,  and  after  having  plundered  them  and  destroyed  her  monas¬ 
teries  and  houses  of  education,  sat  down  with  complacency  amidst  the 
ruins  they  had  caused.  And  now,  for  the  children  of  these  sacrilegious 
spoilers  of  all  that  she  deemed  sacred  and  held  dear,  to  have  the  assu- 

1  History  of  England  — Henry  VlII.  —  p.  135,  fit.  and  note  D.  i 

2  P.  167,  et.  seg. 


3  P.  170 


THE  REFORMATION  AND  SINCE. 


69 


ranee  to  come  forth,  and  to  taunt  her,  whom  they  have  so  atrociously 
injured,  with  persecution,  is  really  too  bad,  —  it  is  intolerable.  The 
less  the  Anglican  church  says  about  its  doings  in  Ireland,  the  better  for 
its  advocates.  The  very  name  of  Ireland  should  raise  a  blush  upon  the 
cheek  of  every  Anglican,  —  if  English  Protestant  cheeks  can  blush  for 
any  atrocity  of  which  England  has  been  guilty  towards  that  unhappy 
country. 

It  would  be  easy  for  us  to  prove,  that  almost  every  important  statement 
which  our  author  makes  on  this  subject,  is  not  only  wholly  unfounded, 
but  utterly  false.  We  will  notice  only  a  few  out  of  many.  Of  the  first 
attempt  to  introduce  the  reformation  into  Ireland,  under  Henry  VIII., 
he  says : 

“Henry  VIII.  caused  the  papal  jurisdiction  to  be  abolished,  in  1637, 
by  the  parliament  (Irish).  The  bishops  and  clergy  generally  assented  ( !) 
and  several  reforms  (!)  took  place  during  this  and  the  next  reign.”  ‘ 

Dr,  Lingard,  himself  an  Englishman,  proves  by  incontestable  evidence, 
that  “  Henry’s  innovations  in  religion  were  viewed  with  equal  abhor¬ 
rence  by  the  indigenous  Irish,  and  the  descendants  of  the  English 
colonists  that  the  parliament  which  abolished  the  jurisdiction  of  the 
Pope  was  not  the  true  representative  of  Irish  opinion,  but  the  mere  echo 
of  English  feelings, —  a  miserable  body  of  mere  creatures  of  the  English 
court,  which  “one  day  confirmed  the  marriage  of  the  king  with  Anne 
Boleyn,  and  the  next,  in  consequence  of  the  arrival  of  a  courier,  declared 
it  to  have  been  invalid  from  the  beginning;”  that  it  was  impossible  to 
enforce  among  the  Irish  people  this  parliamentary  enactment ;  and  that 
“the  two  races  combined  in  defence  of  their  common  faith,’'  causing 
“repeated  insurrections.”^  All  this  he  proves  from  the  Irish  statute 
book,  and  from  other  authentic  documents  ;  and,  so  far  as  we  know,  his 
statement  on  this  subject  has  never  been  controverted  ;  his  proofs  have 
certainly  never  been  met,  nor  his  arguments  answered. 

Our  author  tells  us,  that  — 

“  When  Elizabeth  succeeded,  the  former  laws  were  revived,  the  papal 
power  again  rejected,  and  the  royal  supremacy  and  the  English  ritual 
again  introduced.  These  regulations  were  approved  by  seventeen  out 
of  nineteen  Irish  bishops  in  the  parliament  of  1560,  and  by  the  rest  of 
the  bishops  and  clergy  who  took  the  oath  of  supremacy,  and  remained 
in  the  possession  of  their  benefices.  The  people  also  generally  acqui¬ 
esced,  and  continued  to  attend  on  divine  service  for  several  years.”  ^ 

We  unhesitatingly  pronounce  all  that  is  contained  in  the  two  last 
sentences  utterly  untrue,  which  qualification  we  apply  with  still  greater 
emphasis  to  almost  everything  that  follows  on  the  subject.  Dr.  Lingard 
shows  from  the  statute  book  of  Ireland,  that  “both  the  nobility  and  the 
people  abhorred  the  change  in  religion,  and  that  the  new  statutes  were 
carried  into  execution  in  those  places  only  where  they  could  he  enforced 


1  Page  167. 


2  History  of  England — Henry  Vlll.— pp.  246,  247. 


3  Page  167. 


70 


CHURCH  HISTORY. 


cU  the  point  of  the  bayonet”  ‘  Eyen  the  heartless  tyrant,  Henry  VIII., 
could  not,  either  by  menaces  or  bribery,  induce  more  than  one  of  the 
Irish  bishops  to  apostatize, —  Brown,  archbishop  of  Dublin, —  and  he 
was  an  Englishman  by  birth.^  Under  Edward  VI.,  this  supple  courtier- 
prelate  induced  four  other 'Irish  bishops  to  become  as  reckless  as  him¬ 
self;^  but  in  both  cases,  the  archbishops  of  Armagh, — Cromer  and  Dow- 
dal, —  as  well  as  the  great  body  of  the  Irish  bishops,  and  clergy  remained 
faithful  to  the  ancient  Church  and  the  holy  See.  Is  it  to  be  believed, 
that  during  the  intervening  reign  of  the  Catholic  Queen  Mary,  the  Irish 
Catholic  bishops  became  more  inclined  to  apostatize? 

Mr.  Palmer  devotes  an  entire  chapter'^  to  rather  lengthy  sketches  of 
the  lives  of  various  Anglican  saints  and  divines.  Nicholas  Ridley, 
the  martyr,  stands  at  the  head  of  the  list.  He  winds  up  his  account  of 
this  man  with  the  following  pious  rhapsody : 

•‘Thus  died  the  illustrious  martyr  —  or  rather  thus  did  he  enter 
eternal  life  ;  and  it  may  be  said  with  truth  that  never,  since  the  days  of 
the  apostles,  was  there  a  nobler  manifestation  of  Christian  faith  and 
heroism.  It  was  worthy  of  the  brightest  days  of  the  primitive  Church  ; 
and  not  even  Polycarp,  in  the  amphitheater  of  Smyrna,  exceeded  the 
glory  of  Nicholas  Ridley.”  ^ 

We  apprehend  that  Poly  carp  did  not  change  his  religious  creed,  like 
Ridley;  nor,  like  him,  assist  in  per.secuting  others  for  believing  more  or 
less  than  himself.  Lingard  tells  us,  on  the  authority  of  the  State  Papers 
and  of  Wilkins,  that  “as  under  Henry  VIII.  Ridley  had  been  employed 
to  examine  and  detect  sacramentaries,  so,  under  the  son  of  Henry. 
(Edward  VI.,)  he  sate  in  judgment  on  the  condemnation  of  heretics.* 
We  nowhere  read  that  Polycarp  retracted  his  belief  to  save  his  life,  as 
Ridley  did  in  prison;^  much  less  that  he  ever  turned  traitor  to  his  law'ful 
>  sovereign,  and  sought  to  stir  up  civil  war.  It  was  for  this  crime  of 
treason  chiefly,  that  Ridley  suffered  death.  He  had  preached  openly 
against  Queen  Mary,  at  St.  Paul’s  Cross,  London ;  and  he  was  one  of 
the  most  influential  of  those  traitors  who  assisted  in  setting  up  the 
unfortunate  Lady  Jane  Grey.  He  may  do  for  an  Anglican  saint;  he 
could  never  pass  the  rigid  ordeal  requisite  for  canonization  in  the 
Catholic  Church. 

By  the  way,  why  did  not  Mr.  Palmer  let  us  have  a  sketch  of  the  great 
patriarch  of  Anglicanism, — a  sort  of  spiritual  vicar  general  under 
Henry  VIIL,  and  the  ever  pliant  tool  of  this  real  founder  of  the 
Anglican  church,  —  Thomas  Cranmer,  archbishop  of  Canterbury? 
Was  this  unscrupulous  courtier  too  bad  to  be  placed  even  on  the 
calendar  of  Protestant  saints  ?  Was  the  Oxford  divine  frig'htened  bv 
the  striking  likeness  drawn  of  him  by  the  distinguished  Protestant 

1  Klizaboth,  p.  95.  Irish  Statutes,  2  Eliz.  1,2,  3. 

i  I.ingard,  sMp  c^. — Ileur)  VIII.— p  246  3*lbid — Edward  VI. — p.  78.  4  Ch.ip.  xxiii.  ' 

6  Page  179.  6  History  of  England,  vol.  vii,  p  ]95.  Edit.  Dolmau,  London,  1845. 

7  He  subsequently  retracted  this  retraction,  and  died  with  courage. 


THE  REFORMATION  AND  SINCE.  71 

writer,  Macaulay?  He  was  almost  as  great  a  saint  as  Ridley;  in  fact, 
in  many  respects  the  former  far  outstripped  the  latter. 

We  subjoin  Macaulay’s  estimate  of  the  English  reformation  in  general, 
and  of  the  character  of  Cranmer  in  particular.  : — 

“  They  (the  English  Reformers)  were, —  a  king,  whose  character  may 
be  best  described,  by  saying,  that  he  was  despotism  itself  personitied ; 
unprincipled  ministers  ;  a  rapacious  aristocracy  ;  a  servile  parliament. 
Such  were  the  instruments  by  which  England  was  delivered  from  the 
yoke  of  Rome.  The  work,  which  had  been  begun  by  Henry,  tlie 
murderer  of  his  wives,  was  continued  by  Somerset,  the  murderer  of  his 
brother  ;  and  completed  by  Elizabeth,  the  murderer  of  lier  guest. 

“If  we  consider  Cranmer  merely  as  a  statesman,  he  will  not  appear  a 
much  worse  man  than  Wolsey,  Gardiner,  Cromwell,  or  Somerset;  but 
when  an  attempt  is  made  to  .set  him  up  as  a  saint,  it  is  scai'cely  possible 
for  any  man  of  sense,  who  knows  the  history  of  the  times  well,  to 
preserve  his  gravity.  The  shameful  origin  of  his  history,  common 
enough  in  the  scandalous  chronicles  of  courts,  seems  strangely  out  of 
place  in  a  hagiology.  Cranmer  rose  into  favor  by  serving  Heni-y  in  the 
disgraceful  affair  of  his  lirst  divorce.  He  promoted  the  marriage  of 
Anna  Boleyn  with  the  king.  On  a  frivolous  pretence,  he  pronounced 
it  null  and  void.  On  a  pretence,  if  possible  still  more  frivolous,  he 
dissolved  the  ties  which  bound  the  shameless  tyrant  to  Anne  of  Cleves. 
He  attached  himself  to  Cromwell,  while  the  fortunes  of  Cromwell 
flourished ;  he  voted  for  cutting  off’  his  head  without  a  trial,  when  the 
tide  of  royal  favor  turned.  He  conformed  backwards  and  forwards,  as 
the  king  changed  his  mind.  While  Henry  lived,  he  assisted  in 
condemning  to  the  ffames  those  who  denied  the  doctrine  of  transubstan- 
tiation ;  when  Henry  died,  he  found  out  that  the  doctrine  was  false.  He 
was,  however,  not  at  a  loss  for  people  to  burn.  The  authority  of  his 
station,  and  of  his  gray  hairs,  was  employed  to  overcome  the  disgust, 
with  which  an  intelligent  and  virtuous  child  regarded  persecution. 

“  Intolerance  is  always  bad ;  but  the  sanguinaiy  intolerance  of  a  man 
who  thus  wavered  in  his  creed,  excites  a  loathing  to  which  it  is  difficult 
to  give  vent,  without  calling  foul  names.  Equally  false  to  political  and 
to  religious  obligations,  he  was  first  the  tool  of  Somerset,  and  then  the 
tool  of  Northumberland.  When  the  former  wished  to  put  his  own 
brother  to  death,  without  even  the  form  of  a  trial,  he' found  a  ready 
instrument  in  Cranmer.  In  spite  of  the  canon  law,  which  forbade  a 
churchman  to  take  any  part  in  matters  of  blood,  the  archbishop  signed 
the  warrant  for  the  atrocious  sentence.  When  Somerset  had  been,  in  his 
turn,  destroyed,  his  destroyer  received  the  support  of  Cranmer  in  his 
attempt  to  change  the  course  of  the  succession. 

“  The  apology  made  for  him  by  his  admirers,  only  renders  his  conduct 
more  contemptible.  He  complied,  it  is  .said,  against  his  better  judgment, 
because  he  could  not  withstand  the  entreaties  of  Edward  !  A  holy 
prelate  of  sixty,  one  would  think,  might  be  better  employed  by  the  bed¬ 
side  of  a  dying  child,  than  in  committing  crimes  at  the  request  of  his 
disciple.  If  he  had  shown  half  as  much  firmness  when  Edward 
requested  him  not  to  commit  murder,  he  might  have  saved  the  countiy 
from  one  of  the  greatest  misfortunes  that  it  ever  underwent,  lie 
became,  from  whatever  motive,  the  accomplice  ot  the  worthless  Dudho  . 
The  virtuous  scruples  of  another  young  and  amiable  mind  were  to  be 
overcome.  As  Edward  had  been  forced  into  persecution,  Jane  was  to 
be  seduced  into  usurpa  ion.  No  transaction  in  our  annals  is  more 


72 


CHURCH  H I S  T  0  R  Y  . 


unjustifiable  than  this.  To  the  part  which  Cranmer,  and  unfortunately 
some  better  men  than  Cranmer,  took  in  this  most  repreliensible  scheme, 
much  of  the  severity  with  which  Protestants  were  afterward  treated, 
must,  in  fairness,  be  ascribed. 

“The  plot  failed,  Popery  triumphed,  and  Cranmer  recanted.  Most 
people  look  upon  his  recantation  as  a  single  blemish  on  an  honorable 
life, — the  frailty  of  an  unguarded  moment.  But,  in  fact,  it  was  in  strict 
accordance  with  the  system  on  which  he  had  constantly  acted.  It  was 
a  part  of  a  regular  habit.  It  was  not  tlie  first  recantation  that  he  had 
made;  and  in  all  probability,  if  it  had  answered  his  purpose,  it  would 
not  have  been  the  last.  We  do  not  blame  him  for  not  choosing  to  be 
burnt  alive.  It  is  no  very  severe  reproach  to  any  person,  that  he  does  not 
possess  heroic  fortitude.  But,  surely,  a  man  who  liked  the  fire  so  little, 
should  have  had  some  sympathy  for  others.  A  persecutor  who  inflicts 
nothing  which  he  is  not  ready  to  endure,  deserves  some  respect  ;  but, 
when  a  man  who  loves  his  doctrine  more  than  the  lives  of  his  neighbors, 
loves  his  own  little  finger  better  than  his  doctrines,  a  very  simple  argu¬ 
ment  a  fortiori,  will  enable  us  to  estimate  the  amount  of  his  benevolence. 

“  But  his  martyrdom,  it  is  said,  redeemed  everything.  It  is  extraor¬ 
dinary,  that  so  much  ignorance  should  exist  on  this  subject.  The  fact 
i's,  if  a  martyr  be  a  man  who  chooses  to  die  rather  than  renounce  his 
opinions,  Cranmer  was  no  more  a  martyr  than  Dr.  Dodd.  He  died 
solely  because  he  could  not  help  it.  He  never  retracted  his  recantation, 
till  he  found  he  had  made  it  in  vain.  If  Mary  had  sufiered  him  to  live, 
we  suspect  that  he  would  have  heard  mass,  and  received  absolution  like 
a  good  Catholic,  till  the  accession  of  Elizabeth;  and  that  he  would  then 
have  purchased,  by  another  apostacy,  the  power  of  burning  men  better 
and  braver  than  himself.’' 

In  this  whole  matter  of  Anglican  saints,  we  cannot  fail  to  observe, 
even  in  the  highly-wrought  portraits  of  our  author,  a  sad  want  of 
those  qualities  which,  in  the  Catholic  times,  invariably  marked  the  true 
saint:  —  humility  of  heart  and  action,  mortification,  disinterestedness, 
self-devotion,  penitential  austerities, —  such  as  fasting,  long  prayers  and 
corporal  maceration,  —  and  an  entire  abstraction  from  the  world. 

Mr.  Palmer  himself  furnishes  us  ample  materials  for  making  this 
comparison.  Let  the  reader  only  peruse  his  well-written  sketclies  of 
the  lives  of  Saints  Francis  Xavier,  Charles  Borromeo,  Francis  de  Sales, 
and  Vincent  de  Paul,’  and  compare  their  lives  and  conduct,  as  there  set 
forth,  with  the  lives  and  conduct  of  the  Anglican  saints  alluded  to,  and 
lie  will  at  once  detect  which  is  the  genuine,  and  which  the  counterfeit. 
We  wish  that  our  limits  permitted  us  to  make  the  comparison  in  full  ; 
but  we  must  forego  this  pleasure,  and  leave  the  readers  of  Mr.  Palmer’s 
book  to  make  it  for  themselves. 

There  is,  however,  one  point  on  which  we  must  dwell  for  a  few 
moments,  ere  v.^e  bid  a  final  adieu  to  Mr.  Palmer’s  “  Compendious 
Ecclesiastical  History;”  we  mean  the  downward  tendency  of  Protost- 
■antism,  even  of  Anglican  Protestantism,  as  admitted  by  himself. 
Catholic  writers  have  often  declared  that  infidelity  is  of  Protestant 
origin;  and  we  would  ask  no  better  proofs  of  this  assertion  than  those 


1  Chapter  xxv. 


/ 


THE  REFORMATION  AND  SINCE. 


73 


afforded  by  our  historian’s  own  avowals.  We  will  alle<>-e  a  few  ot  his 
testimonies  bearing  on  this  point.  He  speaks  of  the  practical  tendency 
of  Lutheranism  as  follows  : 

I 

“In  the  middle  of  the  following  century  (the  eighteenth),  a  spirit  of 
false  liberality  and  skepticism  began  to  infect  tlie  Lutheran  communities. 
The  Confession  of  Augsburg,  and  other  formularies  of  the  sixieenth 
century,  to  which  their  ministers  had  subscribed,  lost  their  auihority, 
and  an  unbounded  freedom  of  opinion  on  all  points  was  encouraged. 
The  result  was,  the  rise  of  a  party  headed  by  the  notorious  JSemler, 
who,  under  the  mask  of  Christianity,  explained  away  all  the  doctrines 
of  revelation,  denied  the  miracles  and  otiier  facts  of  sacred  history,  and 
subverted  the  genuineness  and  authenticity  of  tlie  Bible.  This  intidelity 
,  became  dreadfully  prevalent  among  the  Protestants  of  Germany,  and 
Denmark,  in  the  course  of  the  last  and  present  centuries ;  the  universi¬ 
ties  were  full  of  it,  the  ministers  of  religion  tainted  with  it;  and  the 
Lutheran  faith  seems  under  an  eclipse,  from  whence  we  fervently  pray 
that  it  may  be  delivered.”  ' 

The  Calvinistic  branch  of  the  reformation  did  not  bear  any  better 
fruits.  Here  is  Mr.  Palmer’s  testimony; 

“  It  may  be  observed,  in  general,  of  the  reformed  communities  in 
Switzerland,  France,  atid  the  United  l^rovinces,  that  they  have  too 
generally  fallen  away  from  the  doctrines  originally  believed  by  them, 
into  the  Socinian  or  Arian  heresies.”  ^ 

One  would  have  thought,  that  at  least  the  hopeful  branch  of  the 
reformation,  established  by  parliament,  and  by  the  bayonet,^  halter,  and 
stake  in  England,  would  not  have  suffered  a  similar  degeneracy.  Let 
us  hear  what  our  historian  says  on  this  subject, —  and  surely  he  is  an 
unexceptionable  witness. 

“  In  1717,  a  controversy  arose  on  occasion  of  the  writings  of  Hoadley, 
bishop  of  Bangor,  in  which  he  maintained  that  it  was  needless  to  believe 
any  particular  creed,  or  to  be  united  to  any  particular  church  ;  and  that 
sincerity  or  our  own  persuasion  of  the  correctness  of  our  own  opinions 
(wheiher  well  or  ill  ‘founded),  is  sufficient.  These  doctrines  were 
evidently  calculated  to  subvert  the  necessity  of  believing  the  articles  of 
tlie  Christian  faith,  and  to  justify  all  classes  of  schismatics  or  separatists 
from  the  Church.  The  convocation  deemed  these  opinions  so  mis¬ 
chievous,  that  a  committee  was  appointed  to  select  propositions  from 
Hoadley ’s  books,  and  to  procure  their  censure;  but  before,  his  trial 
could  take  place  the  convocation  was  prorogued  by  an  arbitrary  exercise 
of  the  royal  authority,  and  has  not  been  permitted  to  deliberate  since. 
The  temporal  government,  influenced  by  the  schismatics,  protected  and 
advanced  Hoadley  and  several  persons  of  similar  principles.  In  1766, 
Archdeacon  Blackburn,  who  was  supposed  to  be  an  Arian,  anonymously 
assailed  the  practice  of  subscribing  the  articles;  and  in  1772,  a  body  of 
clergy  and  laymen  petitioned  parliament  to  put  an  end  to  it;  but  their 
request  was  refused.  Many  of  these  petitioners  were  secret  disbelievers 
in  some  of  the  Christian  doctrines.” 

1  Pp.  150, 151.  2  P.  152 

3  In  Edward’s  reign,  German  troops  were  employed  to  enforce  the  reformation,  and  to  crush  an 
extensive  insurrection  in  Devonshire  and  Norfolk.  4  P.  105. 

L 


74 


CHURCH  II  I  S  T  0  R  Y  . 


A  humiliating  avowal,  truly,  for  an  Anglican  to  be  compelled  to  make  ! 

At  one  fell  stroke  the  royal  head  of  the  Anglican  church  swept  away 
forever  the  convocation  of  bishops  ;  and  for  more  than  a  hundred  years, 
this  boasted  “  church  Catholic  ”  has  been  voiceless,  and  a  mere  dumb 
slave,  doomed  to  do  the  bidding  of  an  inexorable  task  master.  She  has 
been  well  punished  for  having  cast  off,  in  an  evil  hour  for  her,  the  mild 
and  paternal  authority  of  Rome.  She  has,  unlike  the  Israelites  of  old, 
gone  out  of  the  blooming  land  of  the  Catholic  paradise,  and  entered 
again  into  the  dark  land  of  Egyptian  servitude.  She  is  a  hopeless  slave, 
bound  hand  and  foot :  she  has  no  life  even,  but  that  which  the  capricious 
whim  of  her  royal  master  or  mistress  may  think  proper  to  breathe  into 
her  nostrils  !  We  do  not  wonder  that  she  is  beginning  to  grow  weary  » 

of  her  bondage,  and  to  sigh  again  for  her  former  independence.  It  is, 
in  hxct,  to  this  aspiration  after  spiritual  freedom,  that  we  are  mainly 
indebted  for  the  recent  Oxford  movement.  Let  us  hear  what  Mr. 
Palmer,  —  who  ought  to  know,  —  testifies  on  the  matter  in  question  :  — 

“  The  church  has  been  suffering  much  for  a  long  time  from  appoint¬ 
ments  to  its  offices  made  from  unworthy  motives.  The  bishoprics  and 
other  dignities  Avere*  bestowed  by  the  ministers  of  the  crown  on  men 
distinguished  only  by  birth  or  connections.  Patronage,  in  general,  was 
distributed  on  low  and  worldly  considerations.  Theological  learning 
received  no  encouragement,  and  active  zeal  was  viewed  with  jealousy  as 
an  approximation  to  Methodism  ....  The  aspect  of  the  times  has  since, 
contributed  to  stimulate  the  activity  of  the  church.  The  Aveakness  of 
the  temporal  government,  and  the  influence  Avhich  parties  hostile  to  ilie 
church  have  for  the  last  twenty  years  exercised  over  it,  have  taught  the 
church  to  depend  less  on  the  protection  of  the  state  than  on  the  divine 
blessing,”  &c,^ 

God  grant  that  the  unholy  alliance  may  be  forever  dissolved,  and  then 
we  may  hope  for  England’s  conversion  ! 

It  is  curious  to  trace  to  its  proper  origin  that  modern  infidelity  Avhich 
lately  desolated  France,  and  threatened  to  ingulf  Christianity  itself. 
Nothing  is  more  certain  than  that  it  originated  in  the  principles  of 
Protestantism,  and  first  in  Protestant  countries.  Mr.  Palmer  himself 
will  aid  us  in  proving  this  position,  and  in  establishing  the  two ‘following 
propositions  :  — First,  that  in  point  of  time,  infidelity  obtained  a  footing 
in  England  and  Germany  much  sooner  than  it  did  in  France  ;  and  second, 
that  those  who  subsequently  propagated  it  in  France,  had  imbibed  their 
false  principles,  and  learned  the  specious  sophistry  by  which  they  sought 
to  maintain  them,  in  Protestant  England  or  Germany,  but  principally  in 
England. 

In  support  of  the  first  proposition,  the  truth  of  Avhich  every  one  who 
has  but  glanced  at  history  must  admit,  Ave  have  the  authority  of  Mr. 
Palmer  :  — 

“  England  had  been  alreadv  disgraced  bv  the  Avritings  of  some 


1  Have  been  would  hare  been,  perhaps,  more  graminatical ,  and  the  same  remark  should  be  made 
%s  to  the  following  clauses.  2  1’.  1G6. 


THE  REFORMATION  AND  SINCE. 


75 


unbelievers  ;  but  the  works  of  Herbert  and  Bolingbroke,  of  Collins  and 
Trindal,  had  produced  little  effect  on  the  good  sense  and  religious 
principles  of  the  English  nation.”' 

We  deem  the  latter  assertion  of  very  doubtful  authority.  It  is  well 
known  that  many  of  the  bishops  and  clergy  themselves,  whom  our  author 
praises  for  their  able  advocacy  of  Christianity,'^  were  tainted  with  infidel 
principles.  Mr.  Palmer  admits  all  this,  as  we  have  already  seen  ;  and 
we  have  likewise  heard  how  he  speaks  of  rationalism  and  infidelity  in 
Germany  and  other  Protestant  countries. 

The  second  proposition  is  no  less  certain.  It  was  in  England,  as  the 
associate  and  boon  companion  of  Bolingbroke  and  other  English  infidels, 
that  Voltaire  conceived  his  impious  purpose  of  attempting  the  destruction 
of  Christianity.  This  is  a  very  important  fact,  for  which  we  have  again 
Mr.  Palmer’s  testimony  :  — 

“  After  he  (Voltaire)  had  left  college,  he  associated  only  with  persons 
of  infamous  morals  ;  and  having  published  some  infidel  opinions,  which 
gave  offense  to  the  ruling  powers  of  France,  he  retired  to  England, 
where  he  became  acquainted  with  several  unbelievers  like  himself.  Here 
he  formed  his  resolution  to  destroy  Christianity ;  and  on  his  return  to 
Paris  in  1730,  he  made  no  secret  of  his  design  and  his  hopes. 

Here  we  perceive  that  a  noxious  weed,  plucked  from  the  fertile  garden 
of  Catholic  France,  was  carefully  replanted  in  England,  where  it  was 
nurtured  to  maturity  ;  whence  it  was  again,  in  an  evil  day,  transplanted 
into  France.  Voltaire  plied  the  very  arguments,  and  used  almost  the 
identical  language,  which  had  been  employed,  with  so  much  effect  by 
the  early  reformers,  for  exciting  popular  indignation  against  Rome. 
Let  us  hear  our  author  :  — 

“  Voltaire  invited  men  to  forsake  their  religion,  by  promising  them 
liberty  of  thought.  He  declared  that  ‘Nothing  was  so  contemptible  and 
miserable  in  his  eyes,  as  to  see  one  man  have  recourse  to  another  in 
matters  of  fiiith,  or  to  ask  what  he  ought  to  believe.’  Reason,  liberty 
and  philosophy,  were  continually  in  the  mouths  of  Voltaire  and 
D’Alembert.”'* 

It  is  remarkable,  that  when  Voltaire  was  again  under  the  necessity 
of  leavinof  France,  he  found  an  asvlum  in  Protestant  Prussia  and  Switzer- 
land.  There  seemed  to  exist  a  certain  congenial  feeling  between  him 
and  the  leaders  of  the  Protestant  party.  '  • 

Mr.  Palmer  bears  evidence  also  to  the  rapid  spread  of  infidel  principles 
among  the  crowned  heads  and  the  higher  orders,  in  most  Protestant 
countries  of  Europe. 

“  Infidelity  now  spread  rapidly  through  France  and  through  every 
part  of  the  coMtinent  of  Europe  ;  several  of  the  crowned  heads  were 
more  or  less  favorable.  The  empress  of  Russia  ;  the  kings  of  Prussia, 
Denmark,  Poland,  Sweden,  and  all  the  princes  of  Germany,  were  either 
admirers  of  Voltaire,  or  avowed  infidels.”^ 

Our  historian  scarcely  does  justice  to  the  Catholic  clergy  of  France 
1  P.  219  2  Ibid.  3  Ibid.  4  P  220.  6  P.  221. 


V 


76  CHURCHHISTORY.  • 

during  the  revolution;  and  he  lays  too  much  stress  on  the  apostacy  of  a 
few  among  their  number.  Yet  he  cannot  help  avowing  that  — 

‘‘The  majorit}^  of  the  Roman  clergy  throughout  Europe  retained  their 
faith,  and,  under  the  most  grievous  afflictions  and  persecutions  for  the 
name  of  Christ,  evinced  an  increased  measure  of  zeal  and  piety. 

We  doubt  very  much,  whether  the  Protestant  clergy  of  the  Anglican 
establishment  would  have  stood  the  fiery  ordeal  half  so  well.  We  never 
yet  heard  of  one  of  these  “rich  and  dainty  folk.”  who  coveted  the 
crown  of  martyrdom,  or  who  was  willing  to  die  when  he  could  avoid  it; 
though  we  have  read  of  many  among  them,  who  with  remarkable 
liberality,  were  willing  to  bestow  upon  others  that  crown  which  was  too 
thorny  for  their  own  delicate  brows.  During  the  horrors  of  the  French 
revolution,  hundreds  and  thousands  of  the  French  clergy  and  of  religious 
men  and  women  cheerfully  laid  down  their  lives  for  the  faith,  in  the 
midst  of  the  most  ’ excruciating  tortures  ;  but  we  have  not  yet  heard  of 
07ie  Protestant  clergyman,  who  during  that  whole  period  received  the 
crown  of  martyrdom.  If  there  was  one,  history  is  wholly  silent  on  the 
subject.  How  are  we  to  explain  this  singular  phenomenon,  but  on  the 
ground  that  modern  infidelity  is  the  daughter  of  Protestantism, — a  daugh¬ 
ter  degenerate  indeed,  but  still  cherishing  a  tender  feeling  for  her  parent. 

We  have  now  completed  our  very  rapid  notice  of  Palmer’s  “Compen¬ 
dious  Ecclesiastical  History.”  As  we  have  already  intimated  more  than 
once,  we  have  been  compelled  to  pass  over  in  silence  many  things  upon 
which  we  had  originally  intended  to  animadvert.  Our  limits  have 
necessarily  confined  us  to  a  very  brief  review  of  the  more  prominent 
assertions  of  the  book.  We  think  we  have  said  enough,  however,  to 
enable  our  readers  to  form  some  idea  of  the  Oxfordite’s  Ecclesiastical 
History,  as  well  as  of  the  accuracy,  learning,  and  impartiality  of  his 
Right  Reverend  editor  and  note-maker. 

1  P.222. 


IV.  LITERATURE  AND  THE  ARTS  IN 
THE  MIDDLE  AGES.* 


Importance  of  the  subject  —  Writers  who  hare  treated  it — Division  —  A  Colossus  falling  —  In¬ 
cursions  of  the  Northmen — A  deluge — heautiful  Italy — Awful  devastation  —  New  dynasties  — 
Christianity  triumphant  over  barbarism — Civilization — Literary  history — Tenth  century — Gra¬ 
dual  revival— Its  causes — Golden  age  of  Leo  X. — Latin  language  in  liturgy — And  the  .Monastic 
institute — Elevation  of  woman — Modern  languages — And  Poetry — Paper — Art  of  Printing - 
Illuminated  manuscripts — Universities— Schools  of  Law  and  Medicine — Musical  Notes— Organs — 
Bells— Mariners’  Compass — Geographical  discoveries— Commerce — First  Bank— Post  Office — News¬ 
papers — Spectacles — Gunpowder — Stone  Coal — Arithmetical  Numbers — Algebra— Glass— Stained 
Glas.s — Agriculture — Botany— Clocks — Painting  revived— Silk  introduced — Gothic  Style  of  Archi¬ 
tecture — Leaning  Tower  of  Pisa — Conclusion. 


Literature  and  the  Arts  during  the  middle  ages  supply  a  theme  at 
once  vast  and  important :  vast,  because  it  comprises  a  period  of  nearly 
one  thousand  years  ;  and  important,  because  it  exhibits  the  rise  and  pro¬ 
gress  to  perfection,  of  institutions  intimately  connected  with  civilization 
and  political  liberty.  That  period  was  the  nursery  of  nations,  the  parent 
of  civilization  and  of  empire.  From  the  partial  chaos  of  those  ages, 
sprang  into  existence  systems  of  government,  which,  by  their  harmony 
and  adaptation  to  the  wants  of  mankind,  are  the  admiration  of  the  present 
century. 

The  attention  of  the  literary  world  has  been  lately  awakened  to  the 
importance  of  this  subject.  Italy,  as  usual,  pioneered  the  way.  About 
the  middle  of  the  last  century,  the  learned  Muratori  published,  in  thirty 
huge  folio  volumes,  the  hitherto  inedited  works  of  the  middle  ages,  to 
which  he  annexed  copious  and  learned  commentaries  of  his  own.  This 
herculean  labor  was  followed  by  another  work  from  the  same  author,  in 
which  this  giant  of  modern  literature  spread  out,  in  six  large  folio  volumes 
of  Essays,  the  results  of  his  researches  into  the  manners,  customs,  and 
antiquities  of  that  period.  The  very  vastness  of  this  work,  as  well  as  the 
size  of  its  tomes,  would  make  one  of  our  modern  literati,  who  loves 
meao'er  volumes  with  fine  covers,  shudder  with  horror  !  Muratori  was 
followed  by  Tiraboschi,  another  illustrious  Italian,  whose  classical  and 
extensive  History  of  Italian  Literature,  has,  I  think,  no  equal,  and  even 
no  parallel  in  any  other  language.  These  works  constitute  a  complete 
repertory,  where  the  studious  inquirer  into  the  history  of  the  middle 
ages  may  find  all  that  he  can  reasonably  ask  for.  Among  the  Germans 
who  have  labored  to  illustrate  this  subject,  we  may  name  Frederick  and 

*  A  Lecture  delivered  some  years  ago  in  Le.xington,  Kv.;  and  subsequently  before 

the  Catliolic.  Institute  of  Baltimore  and  the  Meehanics’  Institute  of  Louisville,  in  1854. 

L2  77 


78 


LITERATURE  AND  THE  ARTS 


William  Schlegel,  Meiners,'  Eichorn,^  Heeren,®  ;  and  among  more  recent 
writers,  Voigt  and  Hurter,'*  learned  Protestant  divines.  The  French 
have  also  done  much  in  this  field ;  it  is  sufficient  for  our  purpose  to 
name  Michaud’s  History  of  the  Crusades,  and  to  allude  to  some  learned 
articles  in  a  periodical  work  now  published  in  France, — and  which 
would  reflect  honor  on  any  country, — “  The  Annals  of  Christian  Philo¬ 
sophy.”  Among  English  writers,  Hallam  and  Maitland  have,  perhaps, 
succeeded  better  than  any  others  ;  though  their  works,  learned  and 
excellent  as  they  are  in  many  respects,  are  but  pigmies  compared  to 
some  of  those  named  above. 

The  beginning  and  end  of  the  period  called  the  Middle  Ages,  has  been 
variously  assigned  by  chronologists  and  historians.  We  prefer,  as  the 
most  natural  and  conformable  to  the  great  outlines  of  history,  the  opinion 
which  dates  the  commencement  of  that  period  from  the  downfall  of  the 
Roman  Empire  in  the  west  in  476,  and  fixes  its  termination  at  the  fall  of 
the  same  in  the  east,  in  1453, — a  space  of  977  years.  The  western 
empire,  which  had  commenced  with  Augustus,  terminated  about  500 
years  afterwards  in  Augustulus,  or  the  little  Augustus ;  and  the  eastern, 
founded  by  Constantine  the  Great,  when  he  removed  the  seat  of  empire 
from  Rome  to  Constantinople  in  330,  terminated  1123  years  afterwards 
in  Constantine  Paleologus,  who  might  also  be  called  with  some  pro¬ 
priety  Constantine  the  little. 

That  the  reader  may  more  easily  follow  the  remarks  we  have  to  make 
upon  this  subject,  we  will  endeavor,  1st,  to  trace  the  causes  which 
brought  about  the  decline  of  Literature  in  those  ages  :  2dly,  to  present  a 
rapid  historical  sketch  of  the  literary  condition  at  various  epochs  of  the 
period  in  question  :  3dly,  to  point  out  the  causes  which  prompted  the 
gradual  rise  of  letters  :  and  4thly,  to  take  a  general  survey  of  the  sub¬ 
ject,  and  to  answer  the  question, — how  much  do  we  owe  to  those  ages  ? 

I.  The  causes  of  the  partial  decline  of  letters  during  the  period  of  which 
we  are  speaking,  must  be  obvious  to  every  reader  of  history.  Tliey  are 
almost  identical  with  those  agencies,  which  gradually  weakened,  and 
finally  overthrew  the  Roman  empire  in  the  west.  This  vast  Colossus, 
which  stood  with  one  foot  upon  the  heart  of  Europe,  and  the  other  upon 
Asia,  grasping  with  one  hand  northern  Africa  and  with  the  other  the 
Britains,  was  destined  to  share  the  fate  of  all  earthly  institutions.  It 
trembled  upon  its  base,  tottered  and  fell, — the  victim  of  its  own  vastness, 
and  innate  tendency  to  decay.  The  German  and  northern  hordes  had 
ever  been  the  most  formidable  enemies  of  Rome.  The  same  spirit  seems 
to  have  animated  the  Goths  and  Vandals  under, Alaric  and  Genseric, 
Attila  and  Totila,  as  had  many  centuries  before  brought  Brennus  with 
his  Gauls  before  the  walls  of  Rome. 

While  Rome  continued  to  be  the  seat  of  empire,  the  efforts  of  the 
Northmen  through  centuries  proved  unavailing.  As  often  as  they 

1  Vergleichung  Jer  sitten,  etc.,  des  mittelalters  mitdenen  unsers  Jahrhunderts. 

2  AUgeineine  Oe.schirhte  der  Cultiir  und  Literatur. 

8  Oeschichte  des  srudiuui  der  Classisclieii  Literatur 

4  Since  become  a  Catholic. 


IN  THE  MIDDLE  AGES. 


79 


% 


attempted  invasion,  tliey  were  met  by  the  Roman  legions  under  an 
Adrian,  a  Marcus  Aurelius,  or  a  Septimius  Severus,  and  were  driven 
back  to  their  northern  fastnesses.  But  no  sooner  had  Constantine  re¬ 
moved  the  seat  of  government  to  Constantinople,  than  the  western 
branch  of  the  empire  was  devoted  to  destruction.  Franks,  Goths,  Van¬ 
dals,  Visigoths,  Ostrogoths,  Alans,  Huns,  Lombards,  Danes,  and  Nor¬ 
mans,  successively  swept  like  torrents  over  the  most  beautiful  provinces 
of  Europe.  Nothing  could  resist  their  force,  or  check  their  headlong 
career.  They  carried  everything  before  them.  They  conquered  but  to 
destroy.  They  demolished  almost  everything  ;  for  more  than  two  cen¬ 
turies  they  built  up  nothing.. 

From  the  year  400  to  the  year  600,  was  a  sad  period  for  Europe.  The 
first  conquerors  did  not  occupy  the  soil  which  they  had  subdued ;  they 
pushed  on  to  new  conquests,  or  rather  to  new  devastations.  The  terri¬ 
tory  they  had  last  left  was  immediately  invaded  by  another  tribe  more 
rapacious  than  themselves ;  and  thus  pushing  each  other  on,  as  wave 
driving  wave,  they  covered  the  face  of  Europe  with  the  waters  of  a 
deluge  of  barbarism  for  centuries.  It  was  only  after  the  apparently 
inexhaustible  population  of  the  North  had  been  almost  drained,  that  the 
different  tribes  began  to  settle  down  permanently  on  the  soil  which  they 
had  hitherto  only  occasionally  occupied. 

Italy  suffered  most,  as  she  was  the  favorite  land  with  the  Northmen; 
she  was  always  aimed  at  because  always  beautiful,*  as  an  Italian  orator 
lately  said;  there  was  scarcely  a  tribe,  which  did  not  trample  down  her 
lovely  fields  and  rich  vineyards.  During  the  brief  space  of  twenty  years, 
Rome  was  taken  by  assault  and  pillaged  five  times  !  Yet  a  late  American 
writer  has  well  said  :  — 

“  There  was,  in  that  period  of  general  social  dissolution  one  country, 
in  which  the  work  of  devastation  commenced  much  later,  and  ended 
much  sooner.  Italv  in  the  middle  ages  was  like  Mt.  Ararat  in  the 
Deluge,  —  the  last  reached  by  the  flood  and  the  first  left.  The  remains 
of  the  Roman  social  world  were  either  never  utterly  dispersed  in  that 
country,  or  far  later  than  any  where  else  ;  and  if  we  are  to  date  the  close 
of  the  middle  ages  from  the  extinction  of  feudalism,  that  revolution  was 
effected  in  Italy,  no  less  than  three  centuries  before  the  time  of  Charles 
V.  —  the  epoch  assumed  by  Hallam,  as  the  conclusion  of  his  work.  It 
would  then,  perhaps,  be  expedient  to  refer  the  history  of  Europe  in  the 
middle  ages  to  Italy,  as  the  history  of  the  ancient  world  has  always  been 
referred  to  Rome.  The  great  ascendency  of  the  papal  power,  and 
the  influence  of  Italian  genius  on  the  literature  and  the  fine  arts  of  all 
countries,  made  Italy  essentially  the  center  of  light  —  the  sovereign  of 
thought  —  the  Capital  of  Civilization  ! 

The  justice  of  this  tribute  to  Italy  is  confirmed  by  Hallam,  who  says  : 

“  It  may  be  said  with  some  truth,  that  Italy  supplied  the  fire  from 
which  other  nations  in  this  first,  as  afterwards  in  the  second  era  of  the 

1  “  Sempre  bersagliata.  perche  sempre  bella.’’ 

2  North  Aiiiericau  Keview,1840  —  Art.  Hallam ’s  Middle  Ages. 


80 


LLTERATURE  AND  THE  ARTS 


revival  of  letters,  lighted  their  own  torches.  Lanfranc,  Anselm,  Peter 
Lombard,  the  founder  of  systematic  theology  in  the  twelfth  century, 
Irnerius,  the  restorer  of  jurisprudence,  Gratian,  the  author  of  the  first 
compilation  of  canon  law,  the  school  of  Salerno,  that  guided  medical  art 
in  all  countries,  the  first  dictionaries  of  the  Latin  tongue,  the  first  treatise 
of  Algebra,  the  first  great  work  that  makes  an  epoch  in  Anatomy,  are  as 
truly  and  exclusively  the  boast  of  Italy,  as  the  restoration  of  Greek 
literature  and  of  classical  taste  in  the  fifteenth  century. 

The  Northmen  not  only  arrested  agriculture  and  pillaged  cities,  but 
they  often  destroyed  libraries,  and  tore  or  defaced  the  finest  monuments 
of  Literature  and  the  Arts.  They  spared  nothing  in  their  ruthless  career 
of  destruction.  Occasionally,  indeed,  an  Attila,  calling  himself 
Scourge  of  Godf  would  pause  with  awe  before  a  Leo  the  Great  pleading 
with  a  divine  energy,  that  his  flock  might  be  spared  by  the  wolf ;  and 
even  a  Totila,  the  last  ravager  of  Rome,  (A.  D.  554)  would  quail  before 
the  humble  sanctity  of  a  Benedict ;  but  these  are  only  exceptions  to  a 
general  rule.  Even  the  monasteries,  those  sanctuaries  of  learning,  though 
often  spared,  were  sometimes  pillaged  and  destroyed.  The  famous 
monastery  of  Mt.  Cassino,  in  Italy,  to  which  even  Totila  had  made  a 
pilgrimage  of  reverence,  was  afterwards  plundered  by  the  Lombards,  (A. 
D.  580). 

The  confusion  of  society,  —  the  perpetual  tumults  which  distracted 
Europe,  the  destruction  of  agriculture  and  manufactures,  and  the  misery 
and  wretchedness  thereby  induced,  — the  tears  and  cries  of  the  widow 
and  orphan,  —  and  the  other  evils  of  that  period,  are  feelingly  deplored 
by  cotemporaneous  writers.  So  great  was  the  distress  in  Europe,  that 
about  the  beginning  of  the  tenth  century,  many  believed  the  end  of  the 
world  was  at  hand. 

These  causes  seemed  to  act  with  but  little  intermission,  until  towards 
the  end  of  the  tenth  century,  or  during  a  period  of  nearly  500  years.  It 
required  this  long  period  to  enable  Europe  to  settle  down,  and  to  become 
adapted  to  the  new  order  of  things,  brought  about  by  a  series  of  revolu¬ 
tions  till  then  unparalleled  in  history. 

In  the  midst  of  continual  agitation  and  revolution,  men  could  not  find 
time  to  apply  to  the  cultivation  of  letters.  From  necessity,  their  hands 
were  better  trained  to  the  use  of  the  sword  than  to  that  of  the  pen.  From 
the  continual  devastation  of  wars,  books,  which  could  then  be  multiplied 
only  by  the  copyist,  became  exceedingly  scarce.  The  venerable  Alex¬ 
andrian  library  was  destroyed  by  the  Saracens  in  641,  and  its  fate  was 
unhappily  shared  by  many  other  valuable  libraries  in  Europe.  Books 
were  so  dear  that  they  could  be  procured  only  by  the  wealthy,  precisely 
because  they  had  become  so  scarce.  A  memorable  instance  of  this  occurs 
in  the  case  of  the  Dutchess  of  Anjou,  who  for  one  copy  of  a  book  of 
Homilies,  gave  one  hundred  sheep  and  eighty  bushels  of  wheat.  The 

1  Introduction  to  the  Literature  of  Kurope  in  the  fifteenth,  sixteenth,  and  seTenteenth  centuries; 
2  Tols.  8vo;  —  Harper’s  Edition,  vol.  1.  p.  53. 


IN  THE  MIDDLE  AGES. 


81 


loan  of  books  itself,  became  sometimes  a  matter  of  diplomatic  nego¬ 
tiation. 

Another  fact  must  be  kept  in  view.  Not  only  did  new  dynasties  arise 
on  the  ruins  of  previous  institutions,  but  a  new  race  peopled  Europe,  with 
new  manners,  customs,  laws,  and  religion  ;  whilst  the  miserable  remnant 
of  the  original  population  was  reduced  to  a  degrading  vassalage.  Who 
can  wonder,  if  under  these  circumstances,  literature  declined  ?  The 
great  marvel  is,  that  it  was  not  entirely  and  forever  prostrated.  And  but 
for  the  finger*  of  God,  acting  through  the  divinely  reactive  energies  of 
Catholic  Christianity,  we  sincerely  believe  that  this  would  have  been  the 
case. 

Christianity  was  trampled  in  the  dust  by  the  armies  of  the  infidel  or 
semi-infideP  Northmen,  but  her  divine  spirit  was  not  subdued.  She  con¬ 
quered  like  her  Founder,  by  being  seemingly  conquered  for  a  time,  by 
death  !  She  bent  her  heavenly  form  to  the  tempest,  but  did  not  quail 
under  its  violence ;  and  when  its  utmost  fury  had  been  spent,  she  raised 
her  head,  and  exhibited  her  divine  countenance  and  heavenly  features  to 
the  barbarians  who  held  her  captive  ;  —  they  paused,  and,  — 

**  God !  how  they  admired  her  heavenly  hue.’ 2 

They  were  stricken  with  awe,  they  reverently  took  off  her  chains,  fell 
down  before  her,  worshiped  at  her  shrine,  and  swore  eternal  fidelity  to 
her  cause  !  Their  enthusiasm  was  turned  into  another  and  better  chan¬ 
nel;  and  the  subsequent  history  of  Chivalry  and  the  Crusades  contains 
the  record  of  its  mighty  results. 

After  having  subdued  her  conquerors  by  converting  them,  Christianity 
had  to  tame  their  ferocity,  and  gradually  to  civilize  and  enlighten  them. 
And  nobly  did  she  accomplish  these  results.  But  she  determined  wisely 
to  proceed  gradually  and  slowly  in  the  great  work.  She  knew  that  all 
great  beneficial  changes,  which  are  intended  to  affect  whole  masses,  are 
slow  and  gradual  in  their  operation,  and  that  nothing  which  is  violent  is 
permanent.  The  sturdy  oak,  which  has  vanquished  a  thousand  storms, 
has  been  for  centuries  acquiring  its  present  firmness  and  solidity  ;  while 
the  earthquake  and  the  tornado  are  the  work  of  a  moment. 

A  striking  confirmation  of  this  principle  is  exhibited  in  the  literary 
histovy  of  the  Middle  Ages.  Letters  continued  to  decline  for  nearly  five 
hundred  years,  until  they  reached  their  lowest  stage  in  the  tenth  century; 
and  then  they  gradually  improved  for  about  the  same  period,  until  they 
arrived  at  their  highest  point,  or  zenith,  in  the  golden  age  of  Leo  X., 
about  the  beginning  of  the  sixteenth  century.^  And  this  naturally  leads 
us  to  the  second  point  of  our  division,  in  which  we  will  endeavor  to 
give  a  rapid  historical  sketch  of  the  various  epochs  of  literature  during 
the  period  in  question. 

1  Some  of  the  Northmen  liad  been  partially  imbued  with  the  Arian  heresy. 

2  Dryden’s  Hind  and  Canther. 

3  Ilallam  thinks  that  “the  seventh  century  is  the  nadir  of  the  human  mind  in  Europe,’’  tliough 
he  admits  that  in  England  the  darkness  was  greatest  in  the  tenth.  — Introduction,  &:c.,  sup  cit.  I,  Ztt. 

9 


82 


LITERATURE  AND  THE  ARTS 


II.  In  the  fall  of  Rome,  and  the  establishment  of  the  Gothic  kingdom 
in  Italy  under  Odoacer,  in  476,  Literature  received  a  heavy  blow.  Yet 
amidst  the  turmoil  of  war,  and  tlie  storm  of  revolution,  many  were 
found  in  difierent  parts  of  the  fallen  empire  who  devoted  their  time  to 
letters. 

In  the  sixth  century,  Vigilius  Tapsensis  wrote  and  published  in  Afiica 
many  works  of  considerable  merit.  Dionysius  Exiguus,  or  the  Little, 
became  famous  by  inventing  the  Pashal  Cycle,  and  settling  the  Cliristiar 
era,  about  the  year  516;  and  though  his  chronology  has  been  thought 
to  be  slightly  erroneous,  yet  it  has  been  followed  by  all  Christendom 
ever  since  his  time.  He  was  alike  distinguished  as  an  astronomer,  his¬ 
torian,  and  theologian,  and  he  would  have  reflected  honor  on  any  age. 
In  the  same  century,  Gregory  of  Tours  wrote  his  History  of  the  Franks, 
which  is  the  foundation  of  all  early  French  history.  Italy  was  rendered 
conspicuous  in  the  same  age  by  two  names,  illustrious  in  philosopliy  and 
polite  learning  :  Cassiodorus  and  Boethius,  both  of  noble  family  and 
senatorial  rank,  but  more  illustrious  far  by  their  piety  and  devotion  to 
letters.  The  former  writing  to  the  latter,  praises  him  for  having  re¬ 
established  Greek  learning  in  Italy,  and  for  having  translated,  for  the 
benefit  of  his  countrymen,  the  works  of  Pythagoras,  Ptolemy,  Euclid, 
Plato,  Aristotle,  and  Archimedes. 

About  the  middle  of  the  seventh  century  (A.  D.  669),  Greek  litera¬ 
ture  was  introduced  into  England  by  Theodorus,  the  seventh  archbishop 
of  Canterbury,  himself  a  Greek.  St.  Gregory  the  Great,  by  his  virtues, 
enlightened  mind,  and  patronage  of  learning,  shone  like  a  bright  luminary 
in  the  center  of  Italy  about  the  beginning  of  this  century  ;  while  St. 
Isidore  of  Seville,  by  valuable  works  on  almost  every  subject,  laid  open 
the  treasures  of  learning  to  his  countrymen  in  Spain.  The  compendious 
and  encyclopedical  character  of  his  writings,  was  well  adapted  to  an 
.age,  in  which  books  were  scarce,  and  could  not  be  obtained  without 
great  difficulty.  Towards  the  close  of  this  century  flourished  the 
venerable  Bede,  the  father  of  English  history,  whose  name  is  in  itself  a 
•sufficient  eulogy.  Beside  his  famous  history,  he  wrote  several  works  on 
'Grammar,  Music,  Arithmetic,  and  other  branches.  The  monastery  of 
Lindisfarne  became,  under  him,  a  radiating  point  of  literature  to  all 
Europe. 

St.  John  of  Damascus,  who  is  considered  by  some  as  the  reviver  of 
the  dialectic  or  Aristotelian  method  of  reasonintr,  flourished  in  the  eiofhth 
century.  In  the  same  age  Paul,  the  Deacon,  wrote  his  valuable  history 
of  the  Lombards,  and  Paulinus  of  Aquileia  published  several  Latin 
poems  of  respectable  merit.  The  close  of  this  century  is  famed  for  a 
praiseworthy  effort  made  by  the  emperor  Charlemagne  to  stay  the 
downward  tendency  of  letters,  and  to  infuse  a  new  literary  energy  into 
Europe.  Who  has  not  heard  of  Alcuin,  the  learned  English  monk, 
employed  by  that  great  prince  to  carry  into  effect  his  intentions ;  of 
Peter  the  Deacon,  of  Pisa,  his  preceptor  ;  of  Eginhard,  his  secretary 


IN  THE  MIDDLE  AGES. 


88 


and  historian ;  and  of  many  others  whom  this  munificent  patron  of  let¬ 
ters  attracted  to  his  court  ?  He  established  in  his  palace  regular  confer¬ 
ences  on  literary  subjects  among  the  literati  whom  he  gathered  around 
him,  and  thereby  laid  the  foundation  of  those  academies  and  literary 
associations,  which  have  subsequently  done  so  much  for  the  advance¬ 
ment  of  learning.  Before  the  reign  of  Charlemagne,  schools  had  been 
established  in  many  of  the  monasteries  and  parislies  in  Italy,  France, 
England,  Ireland,  Spain,  and  Germany;  and  he  ordered  by  a  public  law, 
that  seminaries  of  learning  should  be  opened  at  every  cathedral  church 
throughout  his  vast  empire. 

Towards  the  close  of  the  following  century,  a  similar  effort  was  made 
by  Alfred  the  Great,  of  England,  to  re-establish  learning  in  his  kingdom. 
He  was  one  of  the  most  extraordinary  men  that  ever  lived.  He  fought 
fifty-four  pitched  battles  with  various  vicissitudes  of  fortune,  and  yet, 
whether  in  the  camp  or  in  his  palace,  he  invariably  devoted  one-third 
of  his  time  to  prayer  and  study.  He  made  a  law,  that  every  man  who 
owned  two  hides  of  land  should  send  his  children  to  school  until  they 
were  sixteen  years  of  age,  and  that  his  sheriffs  and  officers  should  apply 
to  letters,  or  quit  their  offices.  He  ti^nslated  many  works  into  his 
vernacular  language,  and  wrote  several  poems.' 

It  was  the  fate  of  the  great  men  just  named,  to  have  their  benevolent 
intentions  in  a  great  measure  frustrated,  by  the  imbecility  and  domestic 
feuds  of  their  children  and  successors,  and  by  the  rude  and  evil  nature 
of  the  times. 

The  tenth  century  is  generally  reputed  the  darkest  of  all  the  Middle 
Ages.  It  was  natural  that  it  should  be  so.  The  causes  which  brought 
about  the  decline  of  letters  had  been  steadily  operating  for  nearly  live 
hundred  years ;  and  during  this  century  unhappy  Europe,  already 
scourged  for  long  ages,  and  bleeding  at  every  pore,  was  invaded  in  the 
north  by  the  Danes,  in  the  center  by  the  Normans,  and  in  the  south  by 
the  Saracens.  Yet  even  in  this  iron  age  there  were  many  illustrious 
men  :  Otho  the  Great,  of  Germany,  whose  praises  were  celebrated  in  a 
Latin  epic  poem  of  some  merit,  still  extant,  by  Roswida,  a  cotemporary 
Saxon  poetess  ;  Ratherius  and  Luitprand  of  Italy,  the  latter  of  whom 
was  a  wi-iter  of  considerable  spirit  and  much  wit,  though  his  style  is 
infected  with  much  of  the  grossness  of  the  age.  Even  during  this 
century,  the  monks  kept  up  their  constant  occupation  of  copying  books; 
as  is  proved  by  the  fact,  that  when  the  Sarac^ens  took  and  pillaged  a 
monastery,  near  Novara  in  the  north  of  Italy,  they  found,  among  the 
works  in  its  library,  copies  of  Virgil,  Horace,  and  Cicero.  The  Poles, 
Hungarians,  and  a  portion  of  the  Russians,  were  also-  converted  to 
Christianity  during  this  century. 

Hallam  does  not  subscribe  to  the  more  generally  received  opinion, 
that  the  tenth  was  the  least  enlightened  of  the  Middle  Ages,  at  least  so 
far  as  France  and  Germany  are  concerned.  He  says  : 

1  See  Burke's  Works,  vol.  ii.  Abridgment  of  Eugliah  History. 


8-1 


LITERATURE  AND  THE  ARTS 


“But,  compared  with  the  seventh  and  eiglith  century,  tlie  tenth  was 
an  age  of  illumination  in  France.  And  Meiners,  wlio  judged  the 
Middle  Ages  somewhat  perhaps  too  severely,  but  witli  a  penetrating  and 
comprehensive  observation,  of  which  there  liad  been  few  instances,  liad 
gone  so  far  as  to  say,  that  ‘  in  no  age,  perhaps,  did  Germany  possess 
more  learned  and  virtuous  Churchmen  of  the  episcopal  order,  than  in 
the  latter  half  of  the  tenth  and  ben'inniniif  of  the  eleventh  century.’ 
Eichorn  points  out  indications  of  a  more  extensive  acquaintance  witli 
ancient  writers  in  several  French  and  German  ecclesiastics  of  this 
period.”  ’ 

III.  From  the  beginning  of  the  eleventh  century,  the  prospects  of 
Literature  beuan  to  brighten.  That  and  the  followino-  centuries  could 
boast  the  names  of  Gerbert,  Anselm,  Lanfranc,  St.  Bernard,  Alexander 
of  Hales,  Albertus  Magnus,  Roger  Bacon,  Scotus,  and  St.  Thomas 
Aquinas.  The  last  name  alone  would  immortalize  any  age  or  country. 
How  subtle  and  well  balanced  the  mind,  how  deep  the  research,  how 
accurate  the  reasoning  of  Aquinas  !  In  strength,  depth,  grasp,  and 
clearness  of  mind,  he  was  the  equal,  in  many  other  respects  he  was  the 
superior,  of  Lord  Bacon  and  Sir  Isaac  Newton,  the  much  vaunted  giants 
of  Eno-lish  scientific  literature. . 

O 

The  causes  which  brought  about  this  favorable  chantje  in  the  literary 

O  O  if 

condition  of  Europe  are  obvious.  When,  as  above  stated,  she  had  been 
reduced  to  the  lowest  point  of  misery,  a  reaction  was  naturally  expected. 
A  practice,  which  obtained  very  extensively  during  that  period, 
contributed  much  to  brinof  about  this  reaction.  Christians  were  in  the 
habit  of  making  pii  grimages  to  Rome  and  Jerusalem,  to  renew  on  the 
spots  were  they  occurred  a  remembrance  of  the  sufferings  and  triumphs 
of  the  apostles,  martyrs,  and  of  the  Great  King  of  Martyrs.  This 
custom  afforded  the  double  advantage  of  causing  men  to  visit  or  pass 
through  places  where  literature  was  still  cultivated,  and  of  bringing 
them  into  more  frequent  contact  with  each  other.^  Whatever  brings 
the  masses  of  mankind  into  continual  intercourse,  tends  to  elicit  talent, 
to  stimulate  inquiry,  and  to  promote  learning.  The  law  of  physical 
nature, —  that  inactivity  produces  disease,  stagnation,  or  death,  and  that 
motion  promotes  health,  vigor,  and  life, —  is  true  also  of  the  moral  and 
literary  condition  of  mankind. 

The  pilgrimages  paved  the  way  for  a  series  of  great  and  mighty 
events,  which  aroused  Europe  from  her  lethargy,  united  all  her  jarring 
elements,  and  concentrated  her  energies  on  one  great  object.  The 
Crusades  did  more  than  this.  They  broke  down  the  feudal  system, 
enlarged  the  boundaries  of  dynasties,  and  drained  Europe  of  most  of 
those  tiery  spirits,  who  were  conspicuous  for  nothing  but  stirring  up 
civil  feuds,  or  causing  open  wars.  They  originated  a  spirit  of  enterprise, 
stimulated  commerce,  threw  ’men  on  their  own  resources,  and  tauirht  them 
how  to  make  those  resources  available.  The  old  adage  that  “necessity 

1  Introduction  to  Literature,  etc.,  i,  2S. 

2  See  Hurke’s  works,  ibid,  ch.  2,  v.  2.  p.  514.  et  seq 


/ 


IN  THE  MIDDLE  AGES. 


85 


is  tlie  mother  of  invention,” — was  never  more  fully  verified,  as  we  shall 
see  in  a  subsequent  part  of  this  Lecture.  In  a  political  point  of  view,  the 
Crusades  were  equally  advantageous.  They  were  a  decisive  blow  in  the 
great  struggle  which  continued  for  centuries,  between  barbarism  and 
civilization,  between  Asia  and  Europe,  between  the  Crescent  and  the 
Cross !  When  the  heroes  who  fought  under  Godfrey  de  Bouillon 
planted  their  glorious  banner  on  the  battlements  of  Jerusalem,  in  1099, 
and  made  it  float  there  triumphantly  for  nearly  one  hundred  years,  they 
planted  a  thorn  in  the  side  of  Islamism,  that  did  more  perhaps  than  any 
thing  else,  to  cripple  that  warlike  monster,  which  was  marching  with 
giant  strides,  cimetar  in  hand,  over  the  world,  blighting  and  destroying 
every  thing  in  its  course.  The  fall  of  Constantinople  was  thus  retarded 
perhaps  for  centuries,  and  while  the  Mussulmans  were  engaged  at  home 
with  the  invaders  of  their  own  territory,  the  Christians  of  Europe  had 
time  to  repose,  and  to  prepare  for  the  still  coming  struggle. 

That  master  stroke  of  policy, —  that  “carrying  of  the  war  into  Afri¬ 
ca,” —  will  reflect  immortal  honor  on  the  political  wisdom  and  searching 
forecast  of  Gregory  VII.  and  Urban  II.,  who  planned  and  carried  into 
execution  those  expeditions.* 

The  invention  of  the  art  of  printing,  by  Guttenberg  and  Faust,  in 
1436; — the  munificent  patronage  of  letters  by  the  houses  of  Medici,  of 
Este,  and  of  Gonzaga,  and  by  the  Popes  in  Italy; — the  vast  number  of 
learned  Greeks  who  fled  to  Europe  on  the  taking  of  Constantinople  by 
Mohammed  II.  in  1463,  and  the  welcome  which  these  men  received, 
*  especially  in  Italy,— completed  what  the  Crusades  had  begun.  Litera¬ 
ture  progressed  with  giant  strides  in  Italy,  which  had  shone  as  a  beacon 
light  to  the  rest  of  Europe  throughout  the  long  period  of  the  Middle 
Ages,  and  towards  its  close  blazed  up  so  brilliantly,  as  to  excite  the 
surprise,  and  to  dazzle  the  eyes  of  mankind.  There  was  a  galaxy  of 
genius  in  the  golden  age  of  Leo  X.,  in  the  beginning  of  the  sixteenth 
century, — very  properly  styled  the  second  Augustan  Age  of  Roman 
literature. 


But  see  each  Muse  in  Leo’s  golden  days 

Starts  from  her  trance,  and  trims  her  withered  bays ; 

Rome’s  ancient  genius  o’er  its  ruins  spread, 

Shakes  off  the  dust,  and, rears  his  rev’rend  head. 

Then  sculpture  and  her  sister  arts  revive. 

Stones  leaped  to  form,  and  rocks  began  to  live. 

With  sweeter  notes  each  rising  temple  rung; 

A  Raphael  painted,  and  a  Vida  sung. 

Immortal  Vida!  on  thy  honored  brow. 

The  poet’s  bays  and  critic’s  ivy  grow; 

Cremona  now  shall  ever  boast  thy  name. 

As  next  in  place  to  Mantua,  next  in  fame ! 

1  That  this  motive  was  combined  with  the  enthusiastic  desire  to  recover  tiio  holy  lan<l.  desecrated 
by  file  Mussulmans,  is  manifest  from  tlie  Acts  of  the  Council  <f  Clermont  in  1095.  and  from  the 
*peeoli  of  Urban  II.,  in  this  council,  which  is  a  master  piece  of  eloquence  and  political  wisdom. 

M 


86 


LITERATURE  AND  THE  ARTS 


IV.  Were  the  middle  ages  as  darlc  as  they  are  usually  represented  by 
Protestant  historians  ?  How  much  do  we  owe  to  that  period  ?  I  might 
rather  ask,  what  is  there  in  Literature  and  the  Arts  that  we  do  not  owe 
to  those  ages  ?  We  owe  to  them  the  ancient  Grecian  and  Roman 
Literature,  which  but  for  the  care  and  indefatigable  industry  of  men  who 
deserve  every  praise,  and  who  receive  nought  but  sneers,  would  have 
been  utterly  and  irretrievably  lost,  amidst  the  storms  and  revolutions 
which  swept  over  Europe  during  the  greater  part  of  that  period. 

Two  institutions  of  the  Catholic  religion  greatly  contributed  to  this 
happy  result :  the  preservation  of  the  Latin  language  in  the  public 
service,  and  the  monastic  orders.  The  former  imposed  upon  all 
candidates  for  orders  the  obligation  of  learning  the  Latin  language  and 
of  studying  the  ancient  Roman  literature,  and  thereby  afforded  them  a 
powerful  inducement  to  preserve  the  master-pieces  of  Roman  composi¬ 
tion  ;*  while  the  latter  opened  sacred  retreats  and  holy  sanctuaries  for 
learning,  while  the  rude  storm  of  war  was  sweeping  over  the  world, 
destroying  in  mankind  all  relish  for  letters,  and  desolating  the  proudest 
monuments  of  Literature  and  the  Arts.'-^  The  monasteries  were  uene- 
rally  situated  in  remote  solitudes,  or  amidst  mountain  rocks  and  torrents  ; 
they  offered  little  inducement  to  the  plunderer,  besides  being  almost 
inaccessible  to  his  clans.  It  was  one  of  the  stated  rules  of  the  monks 
of  St.  Benedict,  to  devote  a  portion  of  their  time  to  study  aiid  to  copying 
books,  and  in  the  quietness  of  their  cells,  by  their  untiring  industry, 
they  preserved  and  transmitted  to  us  the  precious  treasures  of  ancient 
classic  Literature.  Enlio'htened  men  of  every  relio-ious  creed  have  done 

O  v  O 

justice  to  the  monks.  And  yet  it  is  the  fashion  at  the  present  day  to 
sneer  at  these  deservino-  men,  in  season  and  out  of  season ;  and  every 
valiant  knight,  who,  booted  and  spurred,  mounts  his  fiery  Rosinante  ;  and 
dashes  in  amono*  the  hooded  monks  of  the  dark  ao-es,  scattering  them 
hither  and  yon,  as  he  of  La  Mancha  did  the  flock  of  sheep,  thinks  that 
he  has  achieved  a  brilliant  exploit ! 

We  have  now  before  us  a  list  of  twenty-five  great  improvements  and 
inventions,  which  we  owe  to  those  much  abused  ages,  many  of  them  of 
vast  and  paramount  importance  to  society. 

1st.  At  the  head  of  the  list  deserves  to  be  placed,  on  account  of  its 
great  influence  on  modern  refinement,  the  elevation  of  female  character, 
for  which  we  are  mainly  indebted  to  the  chivalry  of  the  Middle  Ao-es. 
When  the  Northmen  were  converted  to  the  Catholic  faith  in  tlie  fifth 
and  the  following  centuries,  they  learned,  along  with  other  teachino-s  of 
Christianity,  that  the  Saviour  God  whom  they  adored  vouchsafed  to  be 
born  of  a  woman,  to  call  her  Mother,  and  to  be  subject  to  Her.  The 
high  honor  thus  divinely  conferred  upon  Mary,  was  reflected  from  her 
upon  her  whole  sex  ;  just  as  the  disobedience  and  consequent  dishonor 
of  Eve  had  bowed  down  woman  to  the  dust,  marked  by  the  serpent’s 

1  See  Burke’s  works,  vol.  2,  Abridgment  of  Eug.  History,  c.  2,  p.  514  et  seq. 

2  Burke,  ibid. 


IN  THE  MIDDLE  AGES. 


87 


trail.  The  generous  Northmen  caught  up  at  once  this  idea,  so  just  and 
60  beautiful,  and  their  enthusiasm  in  honor  of  the  sex  was  aroused.  The 
principles  of  medieval  chivalry  were  developed  ;  but  the  feeling  out¬ 
stripped  the  principle,  and  woman  suddenly  found  herself  raised  as  mucli 
above  lier  true  level  in  society,  as  she  had  hitherto  been  degraded  below 
it.  The  humble  daughter  of  Mary  was  thus  far  exalted  above  the  proud 
daughter  of  Eve.  But  the  extravagant  excesses  of  chivalrous  devotion 
to  the  sex  were  curbed  by  the  holy  principles  of  religion  ;  and  the  result 
of  these  elements  and  causes,  is  the  station  which  woman  now  occupies 
in  society.  Under  Paganism  she  was  the  slave  or  toy  of  man  ;  the 
creature  of  his  caprice,  or  the  victim  of  his  tyranny.  Even  the  more 
polished  society  of  ancient  Greece  and  Rome  afforded  but  very  imperfect 
exceptions  to  this  remark.  Thanks  to  Christianity  and  lo  the  Middle 
Ages,  she  has  ceased  to  be  the  slave,  and  has  been  made  the  companion 
of  man  :  from  being  the  drudge  of  society,  she  has  become  its  ornament 
and  refiner. 

The  restoration  of  woman  to  her  proper  station  in  society  had  a  power¬ 
ful  influence  on  civilization  and  Literature.  Even  the  extravao-ancies 

O 

of  chivalry  had  their  beneficial  results.  Female  influence  not  only 
prompted  to  deeds  of  valor,  but  also  stimulated  men  to  triumphs  in  poetry 
and  Literature  ;  the  delicate  hands  of  woman  wove  not  only  the  chaplet 
which  decorated*  the  vvarrior’s  brow,  but  also  the  laurel  and  the  ivy 
wreath,  which  adorned  the  brow  of  genius. 

Women  did  more  at  that  period  than  exert  a  mere  influence  ;  they 
acted  their  own  parts.  Who  has  not  heard  of  the  famous  Joan  of  Arc, 
the  maid  of  Orleans,  who  at  the  tender  age  of  seventeen,  led  the  dis¬ 
heartened  troops  of  France  to  deeds  of  heroic  valor,  retrieving  the  for¬ 
tunes  of  her  country  conquered  by  a  foreign  foe  ;  driving  the  English 
from  more  than  half  of  France,  and  finishing  her  mission  by  crowning 
Charles  VII.  King  of  France,  at  Rheirns,  which  but  a  few  months  pre¬ 
viously  was  in  the  very  heart  of  the  territory  conquered  by  the  enemy? 
Nor  are  her  laurels  stained  by  the  fact,  that  when  taken  by  her  enemies, 
she  was,  at  the  instigation  of  the  Duke  of  Bedford,  condemned  and  in¬ 
humanly  burned  as  a  sorceress  and  witch  !‘  Who  has  not  heard  of 
Queen  Margaret  of  Sweden,  the  Semiramis  of  the  north,  who  in  the 
thirteenth  century,  by  her  political  prowess,  united  all  the  jarring  ele¬ 
ments  of  northern  Scandinavia  into  one  vast  kingdom?  Or  of  Anna 
Comnena,  the  authoress  of  the  famous  Alexiad,  in  the  twelfth  century  ? 
Or  of  more  than  one  lady  who  during  that  period  taught  philosophy  and 
belles  lettres  in  the  University  at  Bologna^ — not  to  mention  Heloise, 
skilled  in  Latin,  Greek,  and  Hebrew  learning,  upon  whose  story  many 
moderns  have  raised  so  man  extravan’ant  and  ridiculous  fictions  ? 

1  Twenty  years  afterwards,  in  1451,  Pope  Calixtus  HI ,  had  her  sentence  revoked,  and  pronounced 
her  a  patiiot  and  martyr. 

2  The  most  famou.■^  of  tliese  femmes  savtaute.*!,  were  Modesta  di  Pozzo,  Cassandra  Fidele,  Isabella 
di  Cordov.i,  Isabella  de  lloseres,  Catharine  Ribera,  and  Aloysia  Sijiea. — [See  Robel''*,  Influence  da 
la  Reformat,  p.  839.] 


88 


LITERATURE  AND  THE  ARTS 


2.  We  owe  all  our  Modern  Languages  to  the  Middle  Ages :  the 
Italian,  with  its  sweetness  ;  the  French,  with  all  its  grace  and  delicacy ; 
the  Spanish,  with  its  stern  dignity  ;  the  German  and  English  with  all 
their  force  and  richness.  The  Italian  may  be  considered  as  the  first 
daughter  of  the  Latin,  the  most  soft  and  comely  ;  the  French  as  the 
second  daughter,  less  fair  than  her  elder  sister,  but  possessed  of  more 
tact  and  more  varied  graces ;  and  the  Spanish,  not  as  the  daughter,  but 
as  the  of  the  Latin,  with  the  stern  features  'and  manly  voice  of  the 
parent.  It  is  a  matter  of  surprise,  how  languages  so  beautiful  and  per¬ 
fect  could  have  sprung  from  amidst  the  constant  turmoil  and  confusion 
of  those  ages  ;  and  especially,  how  the  Italian,  so  sweet  and  musical, 
could  have  resulted  from  the  union  of  the  Latin,  itself  not  remarkable  for 
sweetness,  with  the  harsher  sounds  of  the  North.  We  are  foiadbly 
reminded  of  a  fable  in  heathen  mythology  :  —  as  the  Cytherean  Venus, 
the  heau  ideal  of  ancient  perfection  in  beauty,  was  fabled  to  have  sprung 
from  the  froth  of  the  sea ;  so  the  Italian,  the  softest  and  most  beautiful 
of  modern  languages,  may  be  said  to  have  sprung,  in  all  its  symmetry 
and  beauty  of  form,  from  the  froth  of  a  sea  agitated  by  continued  storms 
and  revolutions. 

Whatever  theory  we  may  adopt  on  the  question,  whether  language  be 
A  divine  gift,  or  merely  a  human  invention,  or  a  result  of  both  agencies 
combined,  there  can  be  no  doubt  as  to  the  merit  wlntdi  attaches  to  its  full 
development  and  cultivation.  A  rich, strong,  precise, or  melodious  lan¬ 
guage  indicates  corresponding  qualiiiesin  the  people  who  employ  it  as 
a  medium  of  thought ;  and  we  know  of  no  instance  in  which  a  fully 
developed  and  highly  cultivated  langu.age  does  not  betoken  a  refined 
literary  taste. 

3.  We  owe  all  our  Modern  Poetry,  and  also  the  introduction  of  rythm 
into  poetry,  to  those  ages.  Italy,  as  usual,  l(^d  the  way.  The  rude  laws 
of  the  Troubadours,  in  the  twelfth,  prepared  the  world  for  the  Divinot 
Commedia  of  Dante,  in  the  thirteenth  century.  His  effusions  were  fol¬ 
lowed  by  the  noble  strains  of  Petrarch,  who  was  crowned  with  lauiel 
at  Rome  in  the  fourteenth  century.  The  English  poet  Chaucer  was  the 
friend,  but  by  no  means  the  equal  of  Petrarch  ;  his  taste  was  often 
vitiated  by  too  great  attachment  to  the  rhymes  of  the  Troubadours,  and 
he  imitated  too  servilely  his  great  Italian  cotemporary. 

4.  The  Paper  upon  which  we  write  was  invented  in  the  Middle  Ages. 
From  ancient  MSS.  it  appears  that  cotton  paper  was  used  in  Italy  as  early 
as  the  tenth  century,  while  linen  paper  seems  to  have  been  introduced  in 
the  fourteenth.*  We  now  reap  the  fruits  of  an  invention,  which  has 
made  the  material  upon  which  we  write  and  print  so  cheap,  as  to  be 
accessible  to  all.  Before  the  invention  of  paper,  parchment,  and  papyrus, 
the  latter  an  article  manufactured  from  a  plant  in  Egypt,  were  chiefly 
used  ;  but  they  were  both  rare  and  expensive.  When  the  Saracens  over- 

1  This  date  for  the  invention  of  linen  paper  is  assigned  by  Tiraboschi.  Ilallana  fixes  it  earlier.  — 
In  1100.  —  Introduoiion,  &c  ,  1.  GO,  supra  cif. 


IN  THE  MIDDLE  AGES. 


89 


rail  Egypt,  in  641,  the  importation  of  papyrus  into  Europe  seems  to  have 
ceased  ;  and,  to  the  inventive  genius  of  tlie  Italians,  thus  thrown  on  their 
own  resources,  we  owe  the  present  material,  superior  to  it  in  every  respect. 

5.  The  glory  of  having  invented  the  Art  of  Printing,  also  belongs  lo  the 
period  of  which  we  are  speaking.  I  allude  not  only  to  the  Artas  invented 
by  Guttenberg  or  Faust,  in  1436,  at  Strasburg  and  Mentz,  but  also  to  an 
invention  of  a  much  earlier  date,  which  was  only  extended  and  improved 
by  the  persons  above  named.  I  mean  the  invention  of  Chirotypography , 
or  printing  by  hand,  of  which  undoubted  traces  are  found  in  many  ancient 
diplomas,  as  old  as  the  tenth  century,  and  in  some  illuminated  works  of 
equal  antiquity,  hitherto  viewed  as  manuscripts.  A  learned  Italian,  the 
Abbate  Requeno,  in  a  work  published  a  few  years  since  at  Rome,  has 
amply  established  this  fact ;  of  which,  however,  I  have  been  unable  to 
find  mention  in  any  work  of  standard  English  literature  :  — and  yet  it 
is  fashionable  for  our  standard  writers  to  sneer  at  the  ionorance  of  the 

O 

Italians,  though  to  them  Literature  certainly  owes  more  than  to  any  other 
nation.  Requeno  proves  that  two  kinds  of  hand  printing  were  in  use,  — 
the  impression  was  sometimes  taken  by  plates  with  letters  carved  on  them, 
sometimes  by  moveable  types  of  wood,  or  ivory,  or  metal.  Only  one  step 
was  wanting  to  render  this  invention  valuable,  and  to  multiply  copies,  — 
the  Press;  and  Guttenberg  made  this  step.  It  should  be  recollected,  how¬ 
ever,  that  it  is  easy  to  add  to  inventions  already  made  :  facile  est  inventis 
addere.  It  is  a  remarkable  fact,  in  both  stages  of  the  history  of  this 
invention,  that  the  first  mode  adopted  was  that  which  afterwards  consti¬ 
tuted  the  highest  perfection  in  the  art :  viz.,  the  use  of  stereotype  plates, 
which  Guttenberg  abandoned  in  favor  of  moveable  types,  because  he 
knew  of  no  way  of  casting  the  former,  to  render  them  available. 

6.  The  Illuminated  Manuscripts  of  Che  Middle  Ages  show  that  the  art 
of  penmanship  was  then  carried  to  a  degree  of  perfection,  which  it 
has  never  since  attained.  Who  that  has  seen  those  manuscripts,  has  not 
admired  their  splendid  pictorial  illustrations,  their  taste  and  exquisite 
beauty  !  The  use  of  gold  and  silver  ink,  seems  also  to  have  been  com¬ 
mon  at  that  period;  and  in  the  Vatican  library,  at  Rome,  there  is  preserved 
a  splendid  illuminated  manuscript  copy  of  the  New  Testament  in  Greek, 
as  old  as  the  eleventh  century,  and  written  entirely  in  letters  of  gold  ! 
I  doubt  whether  our  modern  artists  could  produce  any  thing  equal,  or 
even  similar  to  this  splendid  specimen  of  art. 

7.  Universities  were  first  founded  in  those  ages.  To  them  we  owe  the 
two  great  English  Universities  ;  Oxford,  founded  in  886  by  Alfred  the 
Great,  and  Cambridge  in  915  the  famous  University  of  Paris,  said  to 
have  been  first  established  by  Charlemagne,  about  the  year  800  — and 

1  Some  writers  believe  that  the  schools  founded  by  Alfred  did  not  become  universities  until  some 
time  in  the  twelfth  century.  See  Ilallaui  —  Introduction  to  the  Literature  of  Europe,  &c.,  vol.  1, 
p  ZL 

2  The  same  remark  may  be  made  in  regard  to  this  famous  school,  which,  though  claimed  to  have 
l>een  fouiideil  by  Charlemagne,  did  n<>t  probably  acquire  a  charter  of  rights  as  a  university,  until 
about  two  centuries  later.  See  Uallam.  ibid.  p.  80. 

xM  2 


90 


I 


LITERATURE  AND  THE  ARTS 

the  perfect  galaxy  of  Italian  Universities,  at  Rome,  Bologna,  Padua, 
Pavia,  and  Pisa,  which  became  famous  in  the  twelfth  and  following 
centuries,  and  which  counted  their  students  not  by  hundreds,  but  by 
thousands.  The  University  of  Padua,  the  alma  mater  of  Chilstopher 
Columbus  and  Americus  Vespuccius,  is  said  to  have  contained,  at  one 
time  no  less  than  18,000  students.  The  University  of  Oxford  contained, 
in  the  thirteenth  century,  according  to  the  testimony  of  its  historian 
Anthony  Wood,  a  Protestant,  no  less  than  30,000  students.* 

The  Pandects  of  Justinian  were  discovered  in  the  eleventh  century  : 
and  the  study  of  the  civil  and  canon  law  was  shortly  after  revived  by 
the  famous  Irnerius  or  Werner,  in  the  University  of  Bologna.  Youths  from 
all  parts  of  Europe  frequented  this  and  the  other  Italian  Universities, 
and  returned  to  their  native  countries,  to  diffuse  among  their  countrymen 
the  stores  of  knowledge  they  had  thus  accumulated.  Italy  thus  became  tlie 
radiating  point  of  Literature  to  all  Europe,  and  her  Universities  contrib¬ 
uted,  perhaps  as  much  as  any  other  cause,  to  the  revival  of' learning  and 
to  the  march  of  civilization.  The  University  of  Paris  deserves  great 
praise  for  having  contributed  its  full  portion  to  the  good  work.  Medical 
schools  were  also  established  at  Salerno,  in  the  south  of  Italy,  in  the 
eleventh  century,  (some  say  the  seventh),  and  at  Montpelier  and  Paris, 
in  the  twelfth ;  and  thus  the  science  of  medicine  was  revived.  In  all 
these  improvements,  the  monks  acted  a  very  conspicuous  part. 

In  concluding  this  subject,  I  will  remark,  that  of  the  two  English 
Universities,  Oxford  has  five  halls  and  twenty  colleges,  aud  that  all  her 
halls,  and  twelve  of  her  Colleges,  were  founded  and  endowed  before 
the  year  1516  !  Cambridge  has  seventeen  colleges,  of  which  twelve  were 
founded  before  1511  ;  —  from  which  fact  it  would  appear  that,  notwith¬ 
standing  all  our  boasting,  the  daiic  ages  have  done  more  for  Literature 
than  a  more  enlightened  period  ! 

8.  Who  is  so  dull  of  ear,  as  not  to  be  delighted  with  the  harmony 
of  musical  sound  ?  We  owe  to  the  dark  ao-es,  an  invention  unknown  to 
the  ancients,  by  which  Music  has  become  a  science,  taught  upon  regular 
principles.  Guido  of  Arezzo,  an  Italian  monk,  by  inventing  the  notes 
of  the  gamut,  in  1124,  did  for  Music,  what  the  inventor  of  alphabets  did 
for  language, —  reduced  sounds  to  simple  and  systematic  rules.  He 
also  invented  many  musical  instruments,  such  as  the  cymbal  and  hepta¬ 
chord.  While  on  this  subject,  we  may  remark,  that  Organs  were  either 
invented  in  Italy,  or  at  least  introduced  into  Europe  by  the  Italians,  in 
the  eighth  century;  and  that  the  use  of  Bells  in  churches  may  be  dated 
back  to  the  year  605  of  the  Christian  era. 

9.  But  we  are  indebted  to  tlioso  abused  ages,  for  another  invention, 
which  has  perhaps  had  as  great  an  influence  as  any  other  in  advancing 
the  cause  of  civilization,  and  extending  the  boundaries  of  human  know¬ 
ledge.  And  it  is  in  consequence  of  this  invention  that  we  tread  the  soil 
of  this  vast  continent,  which  but  for  it,  would  never  probably  have  been 


1  Athenop.Oxonienses, 


IN  THE  MIDDLE  AGES. 


91 


discovered  by  the  civilized  world.  We  mean  the  Mariner’s  Compass. 
The  precise  date  of  this  invention  is  not  known  ;  but  it  is  spoken  of  by 
French  and  Italian  writers  in  the  twelfth  century.  The  Amaltites, 
enterprising  mariners  in  the  south  of  Italy,  seem  to  have  been  the  first 
to  apply  it  to  navigation. 

The  invention  at  its  first  stage  was  rude  and  simple  enough.  The 
magnetized  needle  was  placed  in  a  vessel  of  water,  upon  pieces  of  straw 
or  two  split  sticks;  and  it  was  evidently  of  little  use  when  a  vessel  was 
agitated  by  a  rough  sea.  About  the  close  of  (he  thirteenth  century,  Flavio 
di  Gioja^  an  Italian  of  Pasitano,  a  village  near  Amalfi,  devised  a  method 
by  which  this  inconvenience  was  obviated  :  he  suspended  the  needle 
on  a  pivot  placed  at  its  center,  and  it  thus  became  available  under  all 
circumstances.  The  box,  with  the  points  of  the  Compass  marked  on  its 
rim,  was  added,  and  thus  the  invention  was  completed,  though  it  was 
subsequently  much  improved.  The  Jleur  de  lis  is  said  to  have  been 
placed  at  the  North  Pole,  in  honor  of  the  royal  house  of  France,  which 
then  controlled  the  government  of  Naples,  whose  subject  di  Gioja  was. 

The  ancients  knew  somethin^:  of  the  loadstone,  but  never  thouijfht  of 
applying  it  to  navigation.  Some  writers,  whose  spirit  leads  them  to 
detract  as  much  as  possible  from  Christian  nations,  and  to  give  the  merit 
of  every  thing  to  Pagans,  have  contended  that  the  Chinese  invented  the 
Mariner’s  Compass.  It  is,  however,  certain,  from  the  letters  of  the 
earliest  missionaries  to  China,  that  the  species  of  compass  formerly  used 
by  the  Chinese  was  entirely  different  from  our  magnetic  needle.  And 
if  we  consider  the  truly  wonderful  progress  which  this  very  enlightened 
people  have  since  made  in  navigation,  with  their  beautiful  junks,  as 
broad  as  they  are  long,  plowing  the  deep,  we  will  certainly  feel  dis¬ 
posed  to  award  them  every  honor  find  glory;  especially  as  they  make 
themselves  some  thousands  of  years  older  than  the  world  ! 

10.  The  invention  just  mentioned  led  to  other  great  improvements. 
The  frequent  and  extensive  voyages  undertaken  by  Italian  navigators, 
greatly  increased  the  amount  of  geographical  knowledge.  Tlie  travels 
of  Rubruquis,  and  Marco  Polo,  the  famous  Venetian  navigator,  as  well 
as  tlie  written  account  of  the  Catholic  missionaries,  who,  in  th.e  thir¬ 
teenth  and  fourteenth  centuries*,  penetrated  into  the  very  heart  of  Asia, 
threw  additional  light  upon  the  history,  manners  and  customs,  and 
geography  of  those  distant  nations.  From  the  ancient  map  made  by- 
Marco  Polo,  and  recently  published,  with  learned  essays,  by  the  late 
Cardinal  Zurla,  it  appears  manifest  that  Polo  doubled  the  Cape  of  Good 
Hope,  and  visited  Madagascar.  The  Canary  Islands  were  also  discov¬ 
ered  by  the  Portuguese,  in  the  thirteenth  century.  Tlius  was  the  way 
prepared  for  the  discovery  of  America  by  Columbus,  in  1492. 

11.  Commerce  was  also  carried  on  with  spirit  and  vigor  from  about 
the  same  time,  and  the  products  of  the  whole  world  flowed  into  Europe. 
Italy  here  also  led  the  way.  The  Venetian,  Genoese,  and  Pisan  repub¬ 
lics,  carried  on  an  extensive  trade  with  Asia  and  Egypt.  The  Venetians, 


92 


LITERATURE  AND  THE  ARTS 


from  tlie  year  1090,  tlie  era  of  tlie  first  crusade,  became  tlie  carriers  of 
Europe.  Another  powerful  commercial  league  sprang  up  in  the  thir- 
teenth  century,  in  the  north-western  part  of  Europe.  The  Hanseatic 
leau’ue,  which  beuan  in  1241,  with  the  two  cities  of  Hamburg-  and 
Lubeck,  comprised  in  1370  no  less  than  sixty-four  cities  and  forty-four 
allies. 

12.  The  first  Bank  was  founded  at  Venice  in  the  year  1157.  To 
facilitate  commercial  intercourse,  bills  of  exchange  (letlere  di  cambio) 
were  also  introduced  into  Italy  about  the  same  time. 

13.  The  increased  intercourse  among  mankind  for  commercial  pur¬ 
poses,  and  the  necessity  of  carrying  on  regular  correspondence  with 
distant  persons,  suggested  the  idea  of  a  Post-Office.  We  read  that  the 
University  of  Paris,  and  the  Italian  Universities,  as  early  as  the  twelfth 
century,  established  regular  courierc  through  all  parts  of  Europe,  for  the 
purpose  of  enabling  the  students  to  correspond  with  their  parents,  and 
to  collect  money  to  pay  their  expenses.  Such  was  the  humble  com¬ 
mencement  of  an  institution,  which  has  since  been  so  far  extended  and 
perfected,  as  to  ramify  throughout  the  whole  world,  and  to  furnisli  a 
regular  medium  of  intercourse  for  the  most  distant  nations.  We  may 
here  remark,  en  passant ^  that  the  first  Newspapers  were  published  in 
Venice,  in  1562. 

14.  We  also  owe  to  the  period  of  which  we  are  speaking,  an  invention 
which  enables  old  persons  to  read,  and  prevents  those  who  are  afflicted 
with  shortsightedness  from  falling  into  many  disasters,  which  would 
otherwise  beset  this  afflicted  class  of  human  beings.  Spectacles  for  the 
old  and  shortsighted  were  first  constructed  by  Salvino,  a  monk  of  Pisa, 
in  Italy,  in  1285.  Some  writers  award  the  merit  of  this  invention  to 
the  famous  English  monk,  Roger  Bacon.  It  is,  however,  probable,  that 
he  never  constructed  spectacles;  though  in  his  Opus  Mojus  he  certainly 
explains  the  principle  upon  which  they  should  be  made.  He  also 
unfolds  the  principle  of  the  telescope,  microscope,  and  magic  lantern;  and 
he  speaks  of  a  certain  inextinguishable  fire,  which  is  generally  under¬ 
stood  to  mean  phosphorus.  In  the  same  work  he  speaks  of  a  certain 
composition  of  saltpetre,  sulphur,  and  charcoal,  which  would  imitate  the 
sound  and  brilliancy  of  thunder  and  lightning,  and  one  square  inch  of 
which  ignited  would  destroy  a  whole  army  or  city.  Hence  some  have 
considered  him  the  inventor  of 

15.  Gunpowder,  of  which  he  certainly  had  a  clear  idea.  It  is 
however  probable  that  his  knowledge  was  confined  to  theory  and  a  few 
experiments. ‘  Schwartz,  a  monk  of  Cologne,  seems  to  have  been  the 
first  who  manufactured  gunpowder,  about  the  year  1320.  Cannons 
were  used  in  the  battles  of  Crecy  and  Poictiers,  towards  the  close  of  the 
fourteenth  century.  If  the  Chinese  historians  deserve  any  credit,  the 
celestial  empire  had  the  merit  of  inventing  gunpowder,  long  before  this 
world  was  made  !  As  early  as  the  year  688,  a  composition,  called  the 


1  lie  died  in  1292. 


IN  THE  MIDDLE  AGES. 


93 


Greek  fire,  was  employed  by  the  orientals,  especially  in  sea  f.glits  :  but 
all  agree  that  it  was  not  owr  gunpowder.  A  work  is  still  preserved  in  the 
University  of  Oxford,  England,  written  in  the  ninth  centuiy  by  one 
Gracchus,  who  describes  a  compound  nearly  resembling  that  of  which 
we  are  treating. 

No  invention  has  perhaps  exerted  a  more  powerful,  and  I  believe  a  more 
beneficial  influence  on  the  destinies  of  the  world,  than  that  of  this 
terrific  agent.  It  has  entirely  changed  the  aspect  of  war.  It  has 
affected  fortification,  ship  building,  and  has  wholly  changed  military 
tactics.  Besides  its  beneficial  influence  on  internal  improvements,  it 
has,  strange  to  say,  softened  and  mitigated  the  horrors  of  war,  and 
greatly  diminished  the  number  of  those  who  fall  in  battle.  Armies 
formerly  engaged  in  mortal  combat  face  to  face,  and  fought  for  whole 
days,  often  returning  to  the  combat,  nor  was  victory  obtained  until  one 
or  the  other  army  was  nearly  annihilated  ;  men  now  fight  at  a  distance, 
and  the  contest  is  soon  decided.  Thousands  fell  formerly,  where 
hundreds  fall  now.  Compare  any  great  andent  battle  with  any  decisive 
modern  engagement,  and  you  will  be  convinced  of  the  truth  of  this 
remark.  Take  for  example  two  of  the  most  decisive  enii’a^ements 
recorded  in  history  :  the  battle  of  Waterloo,  and  that  between  Poictiers 
and  Tours  in  732,  when  Charles  Martel  defeated  the  Saracens.  In  the 
former,  the  total  amount  of  killed  and  wounded  on  both  sides  was  about 
56,000,  of  whom  perhaps  not  half  were  killed  ;  whereas  in  the  latter  the 
Saracens  alone  had  100,000 —  some  say  300,000  killed. 

16.  Stone  Coal,  which  has  since  proved  so  extensively  useful,  in  private 
residences  and  in  manufactories,  was  discovered  in  England  in  1307. 

17.  The  Arabian  arithmetical  Numbers  were  introduced  into  Europe 
by  the  famous  Gerbert,  afterwards  Pope  Sylvester  II.,  about  the  year 
991.  Thus  the  foundation  of  arithmetic  was  laid,  and  the  science  of 
mathematics  beuan  from  this  time  to  be  extensivelv  studied.  Algebraic 
calculation  was  also  introduced  into  Europe  by  the  Italians,  in  1412.' 

18.  Though  the  ancient  Greeks  and  Romans  were  acquainted  with 
Glass,  yet  they  seem  never  to  have  used  it  in  windows.  This  improve¬ 
ment  in  the  comforts  of  life,  was  generally  adopted  in  Europe  in  the 
Middle  Ages.  The  first  mention  of  glass  windows  occurs  in  writers  of 
the  third  and  fourth  century. 

19.  A  method  of  staining  glass  was  generally  known  and  employed 
during  that  period,  which  has  since  been  lost.  Efforts  were  made 
during  the  last  century  in  Germany  and  France  to  revive  this  beautiful 
art,  but  with  very  imperfect  success.  The  solemn  and  mellow  light  of 
the  old  Gothic  churches,  which  tends  to  inspire  us  with  pensive,  yet 
pleasing  emotions,  is  owing  to  the  use  in  them  of  stained  glass. 

1  The  Arahiaiis  have  the  credit  of  these  inventions.  They  also  excelled  in  medicine.  They 
learned  much  from  tlie  works  of  the  ancient  Greek  authors,  whom  this  active  and  enterprising 
people  translated  This  is  about  all  that  can  be  said  in  favor  of  the  literature  of  the  fanatical 
followers  of  Mohammed,  at  least  in  its  relation  to  the  European  literature  of  the  Middle  Ages.  Yet 
some  authors  would  wish  to  convey  the  impression  that  what  we  do  not  owe  to  the  Chinese,  we  have 
derived  from  the  Arabs! 


94 


LITERATURE  AND  THE  ARTS 


20.  The  ch  ef  sufferings  of  Europe  during  the  Middle  Ages  grew  out 
of  the  neglect  of  Agriculture.  The  monks  applied  themselves  early  to 
this  useful  art,  and  taught  others  how  to  practice  it.  The  monasteries 
were  generally  situated  in  remote  and  desert  places ;  the  monks  re¬ 
claimed  the  soil,  drained  the  marshes,  fertilized  even  the  rocky  mountain 
tops,  and  improved  whole  districts.  They  also  taught  the  people  other 
useful  arts.  Thus,  when  the  people  of  Sussex  in  England ‘were  perishing 
with  hunger  during  a  famine,  in  605,  Bishop  Wilfrid  at  the  head  of  his 
monks,  plunged  into  the  sea  in  presence  of  the  assembled  multitudes, 
and  thus  opened  to  them  a  new  source  of  subsistence,  of  which  their 
ignorance  or  druidical  superstitions  had  hitherto  deprived  them.' 

21.  The  monks  also  cultivated  Botany,  and  studied  the  medical 
qualities  of  plants.  The  clergy  were  in  many  places  the  only  physicians. 
It  is  a  remarkable  feature  in  that  age,  that  every  pursuit  was  referred  to, 
or  connected  with,  religion.  The  names  of  flowers  were  taken  from 
some  supposed  aptitude  to  recall  religious  reminiscences.  The  passion¬ 
flower,  the  marygold,  and  others  are  examples  of  this.  How  beautiful 
and  poetical  the  turn  of  thought,  which  suggested  the  idea  of  the  Floral 
Calendar,  by  which  the  plants,  in  their  difierent  times  of  flowering, 
marked  the  division  of  time,  and  pointed  to  the  holy  festivals  of  religion  ! 
This  was  truly  giving  to  the  flowers  a  language,  which  spoke  of  God 
and  his  saints  —  of  religion  —  of  Heaven  ! 

“  What  a  lovely  thought  to  mark  the  hours, 

As  they  floated  iu  light  away ; 

By  the  opening  and  the  folding  flowers, 

That  laugh  unto  the  summer’s  day !  ” 

22.  The  Clock  was  invented  in  the  Middle  Ages.  The  invention  is 
prior  to  the  twelfth  century,  though  the  author  of  it  is  not  clearly 
known.  The  phrase,  “  the  clock  has  struck,”  was  common  in  the 
twelfth  century.  Some  award  the  honor  of  the  invention  to  the  famous 
Herbert,  already  mentioned,  who  certainly  put  up  a  clock  for  Otho  the 
Great,  at  Magdeburg,  about  the  year  1000.  Others  ascribe  it  to  the 
Italian  monk  Pacificus,  and  others  to  the  Abbott  William,  of  Hirscliau 
in  Germany.  It  is  probable  that  they  all  contributed  their  share  to  the 
invention,  at  nearly  about  the  same  time.  It  is  a  remarkable  fact  in  the 
history  of  human  knowledge,  that  in  its  progress  many  learned  men  in 
difterent  places  hit  simultaneously  upon  the  same  invention.  Every 
scholar  has  heard  of  the  controversies  between  the  friends  of  Gallileo 
and  Huygens  about  the  application  of  the  pendulum  to  clocks;  between 
Newton  and  Hook  and  the  Bernouillies,  about  the  first  discoverer  of  the 
laws  of  attraction  ;  and  between  Newton  and  Leibnitz  about  the  author¬ 
ship  of  the  jiuxional  or  integral  calculus.  Before  the  invention  of  clocks, 
the  sun-dial,  the  hour-glass,  and  the  Clepsydron,  constructed  on  tlie 
principle  of  water  dripping  through  a  small  orifice, —  were  the  only 
instruments  used  for  measuring  time.  ' 

1  See  Durke’s  Works, Vol.  II,  p.  614,  et  seq. 


IN  THE  MIDDLE  AGES. 


95 


23.  In  the  thirteenth  century,  Painting  was  revived  in  Italy  by  Giunla 
of  Pisa,  Guido  of  Sienna,  and  the  great  Cimabue  of  Florence.  Thus 
was  commenced  that  great  Italian  school  of  painting,  which  afterwards 
produced  a  Raphael,  a  Titian,  a  Michael  Angelo,  a  Domenichino,  a  Han¬ 
nibal  Caracci,  and  a  Leonardo  da  Vinci. 

24.  Silk  was  almost  unknown  to  the  ancients.  Among  the  unpar¬ 
donable  extravagances  of  the  Roman  emperor  Heliogabalus,  in  the  third 
century  (A.  D.  222),  historians  enumerate  his  having  had  a  garment 
entirely  of  silk  !  The  silk  worm  was  brought  from  the  East  Indies  or 
China  to  Constantinople  in  552,  and  the  Italians  first  introduced  its 
culture  into  Europe  in  the  twelfth  century.  Roger,  king  of  Sicily, 
deserves  to  be  mentioned,  as  the  first  who  called  the  attention  of  Europe 
to  this  subject.  The  silk  manufactures  of  Italy,  France,  and  Flanders 
flourished  to  a  wonderful  extent  in  the  thirteenth  and  following  cen¬ 
turies,  and  the  beautiful  specimens  of  gold  lace,  and  splendidly  flowered 
and  variegated  silks  of  that  period,  equal,  if  they  do  not  surpass,  anything 
of  the  present  enlightened  days.  Many  of  them  may  be  seen  in  the  old 
cathedrals  and  museums  of  Europe. 

25.  Those  ages  had  the  merit  of  originating  and  carrying  to  the 
greatest  perfection,  a  new  style  of  Architecture.  Who  has  not  admired 
the  splendid  specimens  of  Gothic  architecture  still  visible  throughout 
Europe  ;  specimens  which,  even  in  the  ruins,  which  the  fanatical  vandal¬ 
ism  of  the  sixteenth  century  has  left  of  many  of  them,  in  England,  Ireland 
and  Scotland,  are  imposing  still !  How  massive,  and  yet  how  light,  is 
that  order  of  architecture.  How  complicated  the  parts,  and  yet  how 
simple  the  effect  of  the  whole  !  The  massive  walls  and  the  vast  pilasters, 
as  well  as  the  pointed  arch,  the  delicate  creeper,  the  clustered  column, 
and  the  fairy  tracery, — all  contribute  their  parts  to  the  effect.  Take  for 
example,  the  famous  cathedral  of  Pisa,  with  its  leaning  tower,  or  rather 
the  latter  only.  Can  modern  skill  and  architecture  rear  a  pile  like  that : 
upwards  of  200  feet  high,  six  stories  high  besides  the  basement  and 
pinnacle,  with  209  beautiful  marble  columns  encircling  it,  and  leaning 
between  fifteen  and  twenty  feet  from  .the  perpendicular  !  It  was 
built  by  William  of  Norimberg  and  Bonanno  of  Pisa,  in  the  twelfth 
century,  and  has  been  standing  for  more  than  six  hundred  years. 

Let  men  of  the  present  day  build  an  edifice  like  this  ;  let  it  stand  six 
hundred  years,  and  then,  if  it  be  still  firm  and  uninjured,  they  may 
dneer  at  the  darkness  of  the  Middle  Ages  ! 


V.  LITERATURE  AND  THE  CATHOLIC  CLERGY. 


WHAT  HAVE  THE  CATHOLIC  CLERGY,  AND  ESPECIALLY  THE  MONKS, 

DONE  FOR  LITERATURE  ? 


Modern  history  unfair— A  great  conspiracy  against  the  truth — VFhence  this  unfairness  in  English 
writers — Robbery  and  sacrilege  — Origin  of  modern  mamiiinnism  —  Persecution  of  slander — \7hat 
Protestants  have  said  in  favor  of  the  Monks — Leibnitz — Ellendorf— Edmund  Burke — Raising  up 
the  lowly — Giving  asylum  to  the  oppressed — Bishop  'fanner — Mallet — Drake  — Sharon  Turner- 
Bates — Quarterly  Review — Origin  of  Libraries— Ancient  Cljristian  Libraries — Cathedral  and  Mo¬ 
nastic  Libraries — Monks  transcribing  books — And  collecting  them  into  libraries— Care  of  books 
enjoined  by  rule— Zeal  of  monks  in  saving  books — Principal  montistic  collections  of  Manuscripts— 
Scarcity  of  books — Agency  of  the  Universities — Religious  women  engaged  as  copyists — Writing 
with  golden  and  silver  ink  — Illuminated  margins— The  Scriptorium  — h]ti-d.u8  of  augmenting  Libra¬ 
ries —  lincouragement  aflForded  by  Roman  Pontiffs — What  we"  owe  to  patient  monastic  labor— 
Suiiiinary  of  what  the  Clergy  and  Monks  have  done  for  literature. 


Since  tlie  time  of  the  self-called  reformation,  the  very  fountains  of 
history  have  been  polluted.  Writers  with  violent  prejudices  have  been 
too  much  in  the  habit  of  viewing  the  history  of  the  good  old  Catholic 
times  through  the  gross  and  distorting  medium  of  their  preconceived 
opinions  ;  and  the  result  has  been,  that  the  pictures  they  have  drawn  of 
those  times  have  scarcely  one  light  or  shade  true  to  nature.  So  false  are 
these,  in  fact,  and  so  hideously  deformed,  “  Ut  nec  caput,  nec  pes  uni 
reddatur  formoe  ;  ”  —  “  nor  head,  nor  foot  is  placed  ariglit.” 

Without  taking  the  trouble  to  consult  the  original  documents,  they  have, 
in  most  cases,  blindly  and  servilely  copied  one  another’s  statements  ;  and 
thus  error  has  been  perpetuated  from  generation  to  generation.  The 
public  taste  in  regard  to  every  thing  Catholic  has  been  so  long,  and  so 
deeply,  and  so  widely  vitiated,  that  it  requires  some  moral  courage  now- 
a-days  to  depart  from  the  beaten  track  of  error,  and  to  tell  the  whole 
truth,  according  to  the  records  of  faithful  history.  The  man  who 
undertakes  this  laudable  task,  runs  the  risk  of  having  his  production 
treated  witli  neglect  by  the  community,  and  abandoned  to  the  moth  and 
dust  of  some  neglected  shelf.  Books,  to  he  purchased  and  read,  must 
pander  to  popular  prejudice  ;  and  hence  it  is  that  the  infection  has 
spread  so  widely.  Avarice  in  book-makers  and  book-publishers  has  been 
a  fruiiful  source  of  historical  errors,  and  consequent  popular  deceptions. 

To  convince  ourselves  that  this  is  not  an  exaggerated  or  unfair  state¬ 
ment,  we  have  only  to  open  any  of  our  w'orks  of  popular  literature,  in 
the  English  language.  From  the  primer  and  first  books  of  history 
96 


WHAT  HAVE  THE  MONKS  DONE? 


97 


taught  in  our  preparatory  academies,  up  to  works  on  philosophy  and 
science  used  in  our  colleges,  almost  all  are  tainted  with  this  stain  of 
prejudice.  It  is  the  seasoning  which  gives  them  zest.  Perhaps,  too,- — 
just  to  infuse  into  the  tender  minds  of  children  a  holy  horror  of 
“Popery,”  —  the  pages  of  school-books  will  be  occasionally  adorned 
with  beautifully  executed  wood  cuts,  representing  some  scene  of  horror,  in 
which  priests  and  monks  are  exhibited  as  exulting  over  the  agony  of 
tortured  victims  !  “  Popish  cruelty,  monkish  ignorance  and  superstition, 

the  tyranny,  the  corruptions  and  abominations  of  the  Church  of  Rome, 
the  poor  priest-ridden  people,  the  avaricious  exactions  of  the  Popes,”  — 
and  a  thousand  such  malicious  exhibitions  of  cant,  crowded  together 
often  without  measure  or  reason, —  meet  our  wearied  eye  at  every  page, 
li  is  unhappily  but  too  true,  then,  as  the  accomplished  De  Maistre  has 
well  said,  that  during  the  last  three  hundred  years,  history  has  become 
a  great  conspiracy  against  truth.  This  is  especially  the  case  with  historical 
works  written  in  the  English  language,  in  which,  as  William  Cobbett  has 
bluntly,  but  truly  said,  “  there  are  more  lies  than  in  books  written  in  all 
other  languages  put  together.” 

Whence  this  combination  against  truth  among  English  writers  ? 
Whence  this  deep  and  abiding  prejudice  against  Catholicity,  transmitted 
as  a  fatal  and  poisened  heritage  from  England  to  America  ?  To  detect 
its  source,  we  need  only  glance  at  the  history  of  the  so  called  reformation 
in  England. 

At  the  beginning  of  this  revolution,  the  Catholic  Church  was  immensely 
rich.  The  property  of  the  churches  and  of  the  monasteries  had  been 
accumulated  during  centuries  of  Catholic  charity  and  liberality.  The 
Church,  however,  held  it  only  in  trust,  for  the  benefit  of  the  public,  and 
especially  of  the  poor.  It  had  been  bestowed  for  this  special  purpose. 
The  Catholic  bishops  and  clergy,  having  no  families  to  provide  for, 
naturally  left  their  property  to  the  Church,  or  for  charitable  purposes. 
The  spirit,  and  even  the  letter,  of  the  canon  law  compelled  them  to  do 
this.  The  poor  were  thus  supported  out  of  a  fund,  which  the  piety  of 
ages  had  created  for  their  benefit.  There  was  then  little  pauperism, 
and  there  were  no  poor  laws  in  England.  The  charity  and  the  liberality 
of  the  Catholic  Church,  which  was  ever  the  tender  mother  of  the  poor, 
supplied  the  place  of  legal  enactments  and  of  heavy  taxation  for  their 
support.  Well,  when  the  storm  of  the  reformation  broke  over  England, 
this  vast  property  was  seized  upon  by  the  officials  of  Henry  VIII.,. 
who  pounced  upon  it,  as  a  falcon  on  its  prey.  It  exchanged  hands. 
It  was  violently  torn  from  the  Church  and  from  the  poor,  aifd  given 
to  the  courtiers  and  courtesans.  In  one  instance,  Henry  VIII.  gave  a 
church  estate  to  a  woman,  who  had  made  a  pudding  to  suit  his  royal 
taste  !  Sir  Miles  Partridge  won  a  ring  of  church  bells  from  him,  by  a 
throw  of  the  dice  !  During  his  reign,  and  that  of  his  son  and 
successor,  Edward  VI.,  the  work  of  sacrilegious  spoliation  was  begun 

and  consummated. 

N 


10 


08  LITERATURE  AND  THE  CATHOLIC  CLERGT. 

The  Church  was  thus  violently  robbed,  and  her  property,  diverted 
from  its  proper  channel  of  public  charity  and  utility,  went  to  enrich 
the  spoilers,  who  fattened  upon  the  bounty  of  a  court  whose  vices  they 
flattered.  Avarice  was  thus  seated,  in  sacrilegious  triumph,  on  the  altars 
which  it  had  stripped  and  desecrated.  And  it  has  been  the  besetting 
sin  of  the  world  ever  since  the  reformation.  It  is  the  image,  in  fact, 
stamped  upon  the  minds  and  characters  of  mankind  by  this  violent 
revolution.  We  refer  those  who  may  think  this  picture  exaggerated, 
to  the  acts  of  Parliament,  and  to  the  statute  book  of  England.* 

Can  we  wonder  that  those,  who  thus  became  enriched  with  the  spoils 
of  the  Church,  should  have  labored  to  asperse  the  character  of  her 
ministers,  who  were  the  previous  holders  of  the  property?  It  is  a  prin¬ 
ciple  of  perverse  human  nature,  to  .hate  those  whom  we  have  injured; 
•  and  the  spirit  of  English  Protestant  writers,  in  regard  to  the  Catholic 
Church,  exhibits  a  frightful  carrying  out  of  this  wicked  maxim.  Add 
to  this,  that,  for  nearly  two  hundred  years  after  the  reformation,  the 
Catholic  press  was  gagged  in  England,  and  the  English  Catholics  them¬ 
selves,  and  especially  their  natural  defenders,  the  clergy,  were  subjected 
to  a  most  cruel  persecution ;  and  you  have  a  full  solution  of  the  whole 
y)roblem, —  a  satisfactory  reason,  drawn  from  the  nature  and  facts  of  the 
case,  for  this  wide-spread,  unchecked,  and  long-continued  persecution 
of  slander  against  Catholics,  and  against  every  thing  Catholic.  In 
shaking  off  the  yoke  of  English  tyranny,  what  a  pity  that  we  did  not 
throw  off  also  the  more  galling  yoke  of  English  prejudice !  Alas !  instead 
of  ridding  themselves  of  this  thraldom  likewise,  our  countrymen  have 
courted  it  rather,  and  have  delighted  even  to  chew  the  rejected  cud  of 
English  bigotry  ! 

As  the  world  advances  in  knowledge,  and  as  mankind  become  calmer 
.and  more  earnest  in  their  inquiries  after  truth,  it  is  to  be  hoped  that  a 
better  spirit  will  dawn,  and  that  the  clouds,  which  now  envelop  modern 
history,  will  be  dissipated. 

We  propose,  in  this  paper,  to  lend  our  humble  .aid  to  the  bringing 
.about  of  this  blessed  consummation,  by  briefly  showing  what  the 
Catholic  Clergy,  and  especially  the  Monks,  did  for  Literature  before  the 
dawn  of  the  reformation,  so  called.  And  that  our  readers  may  the  more 
readily  follow  our  line  of  illustration,  we  will  first  show  what  enlightened 
Protestant  writers  have  testified  on  the  subject ;  and  secondly,  we  will 
•endeavor  to  prove,  from  original  documents,  that  the  judgment  of  these 
distinguished  Protestants  is  based  on  the  genuine  facts  of  history. 

I.  Amidst  the  dark  and  cloudy  night  of  Protestant  prejudice  against 
the  Catholic  Church,  the  attentive  observer  may  notice  here  and  there. 


1  William  Cobbett  has  triumphantly  established  all  this  and  much  more  :  and  his  two  volumes 
containing  “  The  History  of  the  Reformation  in  England,”  thougli  the  spirit  they  breathe  might 
have  been  less  harsh,  have  never  been  answered,  for  the  very  obvious  reason  that  the  facts  they 
disclose  are  wholly  unanswerable.  The  second  volume  contains  an  elaborate  catalogue  of  the 
church  and  monastic  property  that  was  seized  on  or  destroyed  ;  the  rental  of  which  he  estimates  at 
.6ne-third  that  of  the  entire  kingdom. 


» 


WHAT  HAVE  THE  MONKS  DONE? 


99 


ill  the  openings  of  the  clouds,  a  star  brightly  glimmering,  and  filling  his 
bosom  with  hope.  The  great  Leibnitz  was  one  of  those  “  bright,  par¬ 
ticular  stars.”  His  vast  and  luminous  mind  not  only  led  him  to  eschew 
prejudice,  but  conducted  him  to  the  very  portals  of  the  sublime  temple 
of  Catholic  truth.*  To  understand  his  testimony,  we  must  remark,  that 
the  Abbe  Ranee,  the  founder  of  the  order  of  Trappists  in  France,  was 
opposed  to  the  special  cultivation  of  Literature  by  the  monks  of  his  order. 
He  wished  them  rather  to  spend  their  time  in  prayer,  and  in  agricultural 
pursuits.  His  opinion  was  singular,  and  in  fact  unprecedented  in  monas¬ 
tic  history,  as  we  trust  to  make  appear  in  the  course  of  this  essay.  The 
learned  Benedictine,  Mabillon,  entered  the  lists,  and  in  a  very  learned  and 
able  work  on  “  Monastic  Studies,”^  completely  demolished  the  position 
of  his  adversary.  Leibnitz,  adverting  to  the  same  opinion,  says:  “If  that 
opinion  had  obtained,  we  would  have  no  erudition  at  the  present  day. 
For  it  is  manifest  that  both  books  and  letters  have  been  preserved  by 
the  aid  of  the  monasteries.”  ^  He  instances  the  famous  monastery  of 
Corbeia,  “which,  through  its  monks,  excelling  not  less  in  learning  than 
in  piety,  spread  the  light  of  the  faith  throughout  the  entire  north”  of 
Europe.^ 

To  this  splendid  testimony  in  favor  of  the  monks,  we  add  that  of 
Ellendorf,  another  distinguished  German  Publicist.  He  testifies  that, 
“without  the  clergy,  and  chiefly  without  the  monks,  we  would  not  have 
now  the  works  of  the  fathers,  nor  of  the  classics.”  *  We  might  also, 
were  it  deemed  necessary,  add  the  testimonies  of  Voigt,  of  Hurter,® 
and  of  many  other  late  German  Protestant  writers.  Their  works  are 
comparatively  recent  and  are  well  known  to  the  learned ;  and  besides,  the 
passages  from  their  writings  which  would  illustrate  our  subject,  are  too 
numerous  and  too  copious  to  find  a  place  in  a  paper  ewhich  must  be 
necessarily  brief.  Thus  the  first  part  of  Europe  which  rebelled  against 
Catholicity,  was  also  the  first  to  do  it  a  measure  of  justice. 

Turn  we  now  to  England,  of  which  we  may  say  with  some  truth, 
what  St.  Leo  the  Great  said  in  substance  of  Pagan  Rome  :  that  she  has 
afi'orded  an  asylum  to  sects  of  every  hue,  and  has  patronized  and 
^  defended  the  errors  of  all  innovators.  One  of  the  most  accomplished 
Protestant  writers,  Edmund  Burke,  in  his  “Abridgment  of  English 
History,”  ^  bears  abundant  testimony  to  the  services  which  the  English 
monks  of  the  ''dark”  ages  rendered  to  Literature  and  to  civilization.  He 
proves  that,  besides  copying  books  and  gratuitously  teaching  the  poor 

1  In  his  Systema  Theologicum,  which  the  writer  of  this  paper  possesses,  in  German  and  Latin, 
this  great  Protestant  Philosopher  explains  and  defends  almost  every  doctrine  of  the  Catholic 
Church.  The  work  was  published  after  his  death,  and  its  authenticity  is  uncuestioned. 

2  De  Studiis  Monasticis,  vol.  i,  4to. 

3  “  Si  ea  invaluisset  opinio,  nullam  hodie  eruditionem  haberemus.  Constat  enim  libroa  et  literaa 
monasteriorum  ope  fuisse  conservatos.” — Tom.  v,  0pp.  Ep.  14. 

4  “  Quse,  monachis  doctrina  non  minus  quam  pietate  prsestantibus,  fidei  lumen  per  totum  sep. 
tentrionem  sparsit.” — Ibid. 

5  De  Hierarchia,  tom.  i,  c.  4.  6.  He  has  since  become  a  fervent  Catholic. 

7  See  his  works,  in  three  volumes,  octavb  Vol.  ii,  ch.  ii,  p.  514,  et  Beq. 


% 


100  LITERATURE  AND  THE  CATHOLIC  CLERGY. 

in  their  schools,  they  instructed  the  people  in  agriculture,  in  the  art  of 
fishing,  and  in  various  other  useful  occupations.  A  desire  of  the  peo¬ 
ple’s  welfare  appeared  in  all  their  actions.  When  they  received  large 
donations  of  lands,  they  immediately  baptized  and  manumitted  their  new 
vassals.  Thus,  baptism,  in  their  eyes,  broke  the  bonds  of  the  slave,  and 
restored  him  to  freedom.*  By  pursuing  this  enlightened  course,  the 
monks  greatly  contributed  to  the  destruction  of  serfism,  a  species  of 
domestic  servitude,  which  was  a  part  of  the  older  feudal  system  ;  and 
they  raised  up  the  lower  orders  in  the  scale  of  society.  To  the  spirit 
of  the  Catholic  Church,  thus  acting  through  them,  and  through  various 
other  mediums,  is  Europe  mainly  indebted  for  her  present  civilization, 
one  important  element  of  which  was  the  abolition  of  serfism. 

In  enjoining  penance  on  the  great  and  the  rich,  they  frequently 
recommended  works  of  public  utility:  “  Let  him  also  repair  the  church 
of  Grod  ;  let  him  improve  the  public  roads,  and  build  bridges  over  deep 
waters  and  muddy  places  ;  let  him  manumit  his  own  serfs,  and  pay  for 
the  ransom  of  those  of  others,  so  that  these  may  enjoy  liberty.”  ^  The 
monks  were  also  austere  and  exemplary  in  their  morals,  spreading  the 
“sweet  odor  of  Christ”  around  their  humble  sphere  of  life,  and  render¬ 
ing  virtue  lovely  in  the  eyes  of  the  people.  They  were  disinterested  and 
free  from  the  stain  of  avarice.  “  So  free,”  says  the  venerable  Bede, 
“were  the  priests  of  that  time  from  avarice,  that  they  would  not  accept 
of  landed  property,  unless  through  compulsion.”  ^  Finally,  according 
to  Burke,  in  those  ages  of  disorder  and  civil  feud,  the  monasteries  were 
places  of  secure  refuge  for  the  afflicted  and  the  oppressed.  When 
hunted  down  by  their  oppressors,  these  could  fly  to  the  monasteries, 
which  were  sacred  asylums,  respected  even  by  the  most  lawless.  It 
was  the  same,  by  God’s  express  appointment,  under  the  old  law,  which 
provided  certain  cities  of  refuge  for  the  forlorn  outcast. 

The  English  Protestant  bishop.  Tanner,  has  written  a  work  expressly 
on  the  monastic  institutions  of  England  and  Wales. In  the  preface  to 
this  book,  be  bears  unequivocal  testimony  to  the  literary  merit  and  moral 
worth  of’ the  monks  of  England.  “In  every  great  abbey,”  says  he, 
“there  was  a  large  room  called  the  Scriptorium,  where  several  writers-; 
made  it  their  whole  business  to  transcribe  books  for  the  use  of  the  library. 
They  sometimes,  indeed,* wrote  the  Leger  books  of  the  house,  and  the 
Missals,  and  other  books  used  in  divine  service  ;  hut  they  were  generally 
upon  other  works:  the  Fathers,  Classics,  Histories,  etcF^ 

He  proceeds  to  state  that  John  Whethampstead,  abbot  of  St.  Albans, 
caused  eighty  books  to  be  thus  transcribed ;  and  that  fifty-eight  were 

1  Spellman  Council,  p.  329 ;  cited  by  Burke,  ibid. 

2  InstJiuret  etiani  Dei  ecclesiam.  et  instauret  Tiaa  publicas.  pontibus  super  aquas  profundas,  et 
super  ceenosas  vias ;  et  manumittat  servos  suos  proprios,  et  rediinat  ab  aliis  boininibus  servos  suos 
ad  libertatem. — L,  Edgari,  c.  14.  Apud  Burke,  ibid. 

3  “Adeo  enim  sacerdores  illius  temporis  erant  ab  avaritia  immunes,  ut  nec  territoria  nisi  coact® 
acoipereut.”— Beda,  lib.  iii,  c.  26. 

4.  “An  Account  of  all  the  Abbeys,  Priories,  and  Friaries,  formerly  existing  in  England  and 
Wales.’^—  lleferred  to  by  Cobbett  in  his  fourth  Letter,  Nos.  132,  et  seq.  5  Preface,  p.  19,  et  aeq.  , 

# 


WHAT  HAVE  THE  MONKS  DONE? 


101 


written  out  by  llie  care  of  the  abbot  of  Glastonbury.  He  says  :  “In 
all  the  greater  abbeys,  there  were  persons  appointed  to  take  notice  of  the 
principal  occurrences  of  the  kingdom,  and,  at  the  end  of  the  year,  to 
digest  them  into  annals.”  The  acts  of  parliament  and  of  ecclesiastical 
councils,  as  well  as  the  great  charters  of  rights,  were  sent  to  these  abbeys 
for  registration  and  safe-keeping.'  Magna  Charta  was  preserved  in  them. 
The  monasteries  “were  schools  of  learning  and  education;  for  every  con¬ 
vent  had  one  person  or  more  appointed  for  this  purpose;  and  all  the 
neighbors  that  desired  it,  might  have  their  children  taught  grammar  and 
church  music,  without  any  expense  to  them.  In  the  nunneries,  also,  young 
women  were  taught  to  work,  and  to  read  English,  and  sometimes  Latin 
also.  So  that  not  only  the  lower  rank  of  people,  who  could  not  pay  for  their 
learning,  but  most  of  the  noblemen’s  and  gentlemen’s  daughters  were 
educated  in  those  places.”^ 

We  are  constrained  to  omit  several  other  passages,  in  which  the  Angli¬ 
can  bishop  bears  willing  testimony  to  the  monasteries  of  England,  as 
hospitals  for  the  poor,  —  as  houses  of  free  entertainment  for  all  travelers, 
—  as  places  of  great  advantage  to  the  common  people  living  in  their 
vicinity,  by  making  them  easy  tenants,  and  by  furnishing  a  ready  market 
for  whatever  they  were  able  to  produce  on  the  soil,  —  and  finally,  as 
great  architectural  ornaments  of  the  country. 

To  this  unexceptionable  testimony  of  an  English  Protestant  bishop, 
we  add  the  following  Protestant  evidence  on  the  same  subject.  Mallet, 
the  historian  of  Switzerland,  says :  “  The  monks  softened  by  their  in¬ 
structions  the  ferocious  manners  of  the  people,  and  opposed  their  credit 
to  the  tyranny  of  the  nobility,  who  knew  no  other  occupation  than  war, 
and  grievously  oppressed  their  neighbors.  On  this. account  the  govern¬ 
ment  of  monks  was  preferred  to  theirs.  The  people  sought  them  for 
judges.  It  was  an  usual  saying,  that  ^  it  was  better  to  be  governed  by  a 
bishop’s  crozieVf  than  by  the  monarch’s  scepter’”^ 

Drake  assures  us,  on  the  authority  of  Warton, 

“  That  the  monks  of  Monte  Cassino  (in  Italy),  were  distinguished,  not 
only  for  their  knowledge  of  science,  but  for  their  attention  to  polite 
learning,  and  their  acquaintance  with  the  classics.  Their  learned  abbot, 
Desiderius,  collected  the  best  Greek  and  Roman  authors.  The  fraternity 
not  only  composed  learned  treatises  on  music,  logic,  astronomy,  and  the 
Vitruvian  architecture,  but  likewise  employed  a  portion  of  their  time  in 
transcribing  Tacitus,  etc.,  etc.  This  laudable  example  was,  in  the  eleventh 
and  twelfth  centuries,  followed  with  great  spirit  and  emulation  by  many 
English  monasteries.”^ 

Sharon  Turner,  in  his  History  of  England,  speaks  of  the  monasteries 
after  this  wise  : 

“  No  tyranny  was  ever  established,  that  was  more  unequivocally  the 
creature  of  popular  will,  nor  longer  maintained  by  popular  support :  in 

1  Ibid.  2  Ibid.  3  History  of  the  Swiss,  toI.  i,  p.  105.  4  Literary  Hours,  vol.  ii.  p.  435. 

N2 


102  LITERATURE  AND  THE  CATHOLIC  CLERGY. 


no  point  did  personal  interest  and  public  welfare  more  cordially  unite, 
than  in  the  encouragement  of  monasteries.”* 

Bates,  another  Protestant  writer,  recommends  the  establishment  in 
England  of  a  species  of  Protestant  nunneries  for  the  instruction  of  young 
ladies,  in  order  to  counteract  the  influence  of  Catholic  female  convents. 
He  says  : 

“Thus  might  the  comfort  and  welfare  of  many  individuals  be  promoted 
to  the  great  benefit  of  society  at  large,  and  the  interests  of  popery,  by 
improving  on  its  own  principles,  be  considerably  counteracted.”^ 

Protestants,  some  years  ago,  tried  this  experiment  in  London,  but  the 
affair  turned  out  an  utter  failure.  However,  the  elopements  extraordinary 
which  broke  up  the  attempted  establishment,  were  perhaps  “  an  improve¬ 
ment  on  the  principles  of  popery  !  ”  The  whole  business,  like  all  other 
previous  attempts  at  reformation  by  Protestants,  ended,  as  Erasmus  had 
caustically  observed,  “in  the  comedy  of  marriage!”  Alas!  Protest¬ 
antism  has  not  vitality  enough  for  such  undertakings. 

We  will  close  this  mass  of  Protestant  testimony,  by  a  beautiful  passage 
from  the  Quarterly  Review,  for  December,  1811: 

“  The  world  has  never  been  so  much  indebted  to  any  other  body  of 
men,  as  to  the  illustrious  Order  of  Benedictine  monks.  .  .  Tinian  and 
Juan  Fernandez  are  not  more  beautiful  spots  on  the  ocean,  than  Malmes¬ 
bury,  Lindisfarne,  and  Jarrow  were  in  the  ages  of  our  heptarchy.  A 
community  of  pious  men  devoted  to  literaiure,  and  to  the  useful  arts,  as 
well  as  to  religion,  seems  in  those  days  like  a  green  Oasis  amid  the  desert. 
Like  stars  on  a  moonless  night,  they  shine  upon  us  with  a  tranquil  ray. 
If  ever  there  was  a  man  who  could  truly  be  called  venerable,  it  was  he  to 
whom  the  appellation  is  constantly  fixed,  Bede,  whose  life  was  passed  in 
instructing  his  own  generation,  and  preparing  records  for  posterity.  In 
those  days  the  Church  offered  the  only  asylum  from  the  evils  to  which 
every  country  was  exposed,  —  amidst  continual  wars,  the  Church  enjoyed 
peace,  —  it  was  regarded  as  a  sacred  realm  by  men,  who,  though  they 
hated  one  another,  believed  in  and  feared  the  same  God.  .  .  The  wise  as 
well  as  the  timid  and  gentle  fled  to  the  Goshen  of  God,  which  enjoyed 
its  own  light  and  calm  amidst  darkness  and  storms.” 

II.  According  to  our  plan,  we  will  now  endeavor  to  prove,  that  this 
Protestant  homage  paid  to  the  institutions  of  the  Catholic  Church  is 
based  upon  the  facts  of  anthentic  history,  derived  from  original  docu¬ 
ments.  And  while  pursuing  this  line  of  illustration,  we  will  be  enabled 
to  see  more  in  detail  what  the  Catholic  Clergy  and  the  Monks  have  done 
for  Literature. 

Before  the  invention  of  the  art  of  printing  by  Guttenberg  and  his 
associates,  about  the  year  1436,  the  scarcity  of  books  was  perhaps  the 
greatest  difficulty  with  which  Literature  had  to  struggle.  Books,  which 
could  be  multiplied  only  by  the  tedious  process  of  copying  by  hand, 

1  Vol  ii,  pp.  332  and  361.  We  suppose  that  hard  word  tyranny  was  thrown  in  as  a  douceur  to 
IProtestant  prejudice  It  requires  more  acute  optics  than  ours  to  perceive  how  that  can  be  “tyranny,” 
which  is  “  unequivocally  the  creature  of  popular  will,”  and  which  combines  “  personal  interest  and 
puhlir  welfare.”  2  “  Rural  Philosophy,”  p.  322. 


WHAT  HAVE  THE  MONKS  DONE? 


103 


were  necessarily  scarce  and  dear.  It  cost  a  man  almost  the  labor  of  a 
life-time,  to  obtain  even  a  scanty  library  by  this  means.  At  the  present 
day,  when  books  have  been  so  vastly  n^ultiplied,  we  can  hardly  form  an 
adequate  idea  of  the  obstacles  which  our  forefathers  had  to  overcome  in  the 
middle  ages.  It  ill  becomes  us  to  sneer  at  their  ignorance,  when,  due 
allowance  being  made  for  the  difficulty  of  their  position  in  this  respect, 
they  might  perhaps  compare  advantageously  with  us,  in  ardor  and  zeal 
for  the  promotion  of  learning.  Besides,  by  their  patient  labor  in  the 
transcription  of  books,  they  preserved  for  us  the  treasures  of  ancient 
Latin  and  Greek  Literature,  —  to  say  nothing  of  the  Fathers  and  of  the 
sacred  writings, — and  they  thereby  laid  the  foundation  of  modern  lite-. 
rature,  and  made  \t2i0ssible  for  us  to  be  learned.  Gratitude  for  a  service 
so  important,  should  incline  us  to  leniency  in  judging  of  their  pi  ogress 
in  letters.  But  they  need  not  our  mercy  ;  all  tliey  demand  is  our  justice. 
If  they  be  judged  according  to  this  standard,  they  will  not  suflbr  by 
comparison  even  with  our  enlightened  age,  every  thing  being  taken  into 
the  account. 

Tlie  history  of  the  formation  and  preservation  of  libraries  before  the 
art  of  printing,  is  one  of  the  most  interesting  and  useful  branches  of 
literary  inquiry.  It  is  an  investigation  intimately  connected  with  the 
advancement  of  learning  during  the  middle  ages,  as  well  as  with  its 
present  condition.  Those  who  founded  and  multiplied  libraries  deserve 
the  immortal  gratitude  of  this  age.  We  propose  to  show:  1st,  how 
libraries  were  founded  throughout  the  Christian  world,  at  the  period  in 
question,  and  what  agency  the  Catholic  clergy  had  in  their  establish¬ 
ment  ;  and  2dly,  how,  and  by  what  means,  these  libraries  were  increased 
and  multiplied  over  the  world. 

1.  Religion  and  Literature  were  always  cultivated  together.  The 
library  grew  up  with  the  school,  under  the  shadow  of  the  Church. 
Libraries  were  attached  to  most  of  the  ancient  churches,  particularly  to 
those  of  the  patriarchal,  metropolitan,  and  episcopal  sees.  Eusebius  tells 
us  of  his  frequent  visits  to  the  library  attached  to  the  cathedral  church 
of  Caesarea.  St.  Jerome,  in  his  Letters,  often  speaks  of  that  connected 
with  the  church  at  Jerusalem.  But  the  most  famous  collections  of  books 
among  the  ancient  Christians  were  those  at  Rome,  Alexandria,  and  Con¬ 
stantinople.  That  of  Rome,  in  the  famous  Lateran  Basilica,  was  founded 
by  St.  Hilary,  a  Pope  of  the  sixth  century.  It  was  divided  into  two 
departments  :  the  private,  or  that  of  the  archives  of  the  Roman  church, 
and  the  public  or  classical,  to  which  all  could  have  access.' 

Of  the  three  libraries  just  mentioned,  that  of  Rome  alone  has  been 
preserved  to  our  day.  Transferred  to  the  Vatican,  it  has  shared  the 
immortality  of  the  “  eternal  city ;  ”  and  it  is  at  the  present  day  the  one 
which  is  most  famous  for  old  manuscripts,  and  the  richest  in  ancient, 
lore.  The  suite  of  rooms  in  which  it  is  contained,  is  nearly  a  quarter  of 
a  mile  long,  and  it  is  surpassingly  rich  and  splendid.  The  library  of  Con- 

1  Vide  Atiasta.siu8  Bibliothecarius,  —  in  Vita  Hilarii. 


104  LITERATURE  AND  THE  CATHOLIC  CLERGY. 

Stan  tinople,  containing  about  one  hundred  thousand  manuscript  volumes, 
was  destroyed  in  one  of  tliose  popular  seditions  so  common  in  that  city 
during  the  middle  ages.  That  of  Alexandria,  supposed  to  contain  no 
less  than  seven  hundred  thousand  manuscript  tomes,  was  burnt  by  order 
of  the  Caliph  Omar,  about  the  year  632.  Its  loss  was  an  irreparable 
blow  to  Literature..  Perhaps  hundreds  of  works  of  the  fathers,  and  of 
the  ancient  classics  perished  in  that  one  brief  conflagration. 

In  Germany,  the  cathedrals  of  Hamburg,  Bamberg,  Cologne,  Pader- 
born,  and  many  others,  had  extensive  libraries  adjoining  them.  Those 
attached  to  the  cathedrals  of  England  were  no  less  famous.*  The  library 
was  often  a  part  of  the  church  building  itself.  Among  ancient  writers, 
it  was  called  by  different  names  ;  —  Secretarium,  Chartarium,  Archiviurriy 
Scrinmm,  Lihrariiim,  etc.  St.  Gregory  the  Great,  about  the  year  600, 
wrote  to  Eulogius,  patriarch  of  Alexandria,  who  had  asked  him  for  a 
particular  work  :  “  That  the  book  he  sought  for  could  not  be  found, 
either  in  the  archives  of  the  Roman  Church,  or  in  the  other  collections 
of  the  city:  ”  —  which  passage  proves  that  there  were  many  libraries  in  Rome, 
at  the  close  of  the  sixth  century. 

The  agency  of  the  Catholic  clergy,  both  secular  and  regular,  in  forming 
the  ancient  libraries,  is  manifest  from  every  document  connected  with  the 
history  of  those  establishments.  Even  in  pagan  times,  the  priesthood  had 
been  entrusted  with  the  guardianship  of  books,  profane  as  well  as  sacred. 
In  ancient  Rome,  the  temples  of  Apollo  Palatine,  of  Peace,  and  of  the 
Capitol,  and  in  Egypt  that  of  Serapis,  were  the  depositories  of  books,  of 
which  the  priests  had  charge.  The  Catholic  clergy  were  always  the  chief 
librarians  in  the  early  times  of  the  Church,  and  particularly  in  the  middle 
ages.  The  Emperor  Justinian  ordered  that  copies  of  his  laws  should  be 
kept  in  the  principal  churches  of  the  empire,  with  as  much  care  as  the 
sacred  vases.  In  many  episcopal  cities,  such  as  Rome,  Hippo,  Yercelli,  and 
Tours,  the  clergy  lived  in  common  with  the  bishop,  and  conducted  flour¬ 
ishing  schools  under  his  eye.  There  were  also  schools  adjoining  the  other 
cathedral,  and  even  the  principal  parochial  churches.  This  created  a  ne¬ 
cessity  for  books.  And  accordingly,  we  find  that  those  places  were  the 
■nuclei  of  the  most  extensive  libraries  in  Europe. 

But  the  monks  distinguished  themselves  most,  both  in  the  collection  of 
books,  and  in  the  founding  of  libraries.  Monasteries  were  founded  in  the 
east,  as  early  as  the  fourth  century.  The  rule  of  St.  Pachomius  enters  into 
the  most  minute  details,  concerning  the  necessity  of  taking  care  of  the  books 
-contained  in  the  monastic  library.  Two  monks  were  appointed  in  each 
house  for  this  purpose.  Each  one  was  directed  to  have  his  own  reading 
book.  There  were  from  thirty  to  forty  houses  belonging  to  this  order,  with 
an  average  of  forty  monks  in  each;  so  that  the  total  number  of  monks  was 
-between  twelve  and  sixteen  hundred.  The  number  of  books  was,  by  the 
monastic  rule  just  alluded  to,  at  least  as  great.  And  yet  this  monastic 


1  See  Ileeren,  Opp.  1,  65. 


WHAT  HAVE  THE  MONKS  DONE? 


105 


order  made  no  special  profession  of  letters ;  and  the  monks  belonging  to  i^ 
were,  many  of  them,  simple  and  unlearned. 

In  the  sixth  century,  the  great  Cassiodorus  bequeathed  his  library,  which 
he  had  collected  with  incredible  labor,  to  the  Solitaries ;  knowing  “  that 
among  them  alone  could  the  faint  rays  of  science  be  gathered  together, 
increase,  and  form  a  great  light,  to  enlighten  the  nations.”  St.  Augustine, 
in  his  last  will,  recommended  his  library  to  the  care  of  his  priests,  who 
lived  in  common  with  him,  under  a  rule  drawn  up  by  himself.  So  great 
was  the  importance  attached  to  the  preservation  of  the  monastic  libraries, 
that  St.  Gregory  the  Great,  himself  a  Benedictine  monk,  instituted  a  legal 
process  in  order  to  have  a  book  restored  to  a  monastery.  The  forty  monks 
whom  this  sainted  Pontiff  sent  out  with  St.  Augustine  to  labor  for  the  con¬ 
version  of  England,  carried  many  books  with  them,  and  among  others,  a 
Homer.'  We  may  as  well  state  here,  as  elsewhere,  that  many  ancient 
bishops  were  in  the  habit  of  carrying  their  books  with  them  while  traveling. 
This  was  the  practice  of  St.  Burchard,  who  flourished,  A.  D.  761 ;  and  of 
St.  Bruno,  who  died  965.  The  disciples  of  Ratherius,  the  famous  bishop 
of  Verona,  who  lived  in  the  tenth  century,  always  sent  his  books  before  him, 
in  his  numerous  journeys  through  Europe.  Among  these  was  a  copy  of 
Plautus,  and  another  Of  Terence. 

St.  Bennet  Biscop  founded  the  famous  Abbey  of  Weremouth  in  England, 
A.  D.  674.  He  traversed  Europe  no  less  than  five  times,  in  order  to  collect 
books,  and  to  establish  a  library  in  this  his  cherished  monastery.  The 
venerable  Bede  tells  us  that,  by  means  of  these  peregrinations,  “he  brought 
into  England  an  almost  innumerable  quantity  of  books  of  every  kind.”^ 
These,  on  dying,  he  bequeathed  to  his  disciples,  holding  them  responsible 
before  God  for  their  preservation.  His  love  for  learning  was  thus  his  ruling 
passion,  strong  even  in  death.  The  abbots  Ceolfrid  and  Egbert  contributed 
much  towards  increasing  this  venerable  library. 

The  great  Alcuin,  in  the  beginning  of  the  ninth  century,  wrote  in  Latin 
verse  a  catalogue  of  the  books  belonging  to  the  famous  library  at  York. 
From  this  catalogue,  which  is  still  extant,  it  appears  that  York  then  pos¬ 
sessed  the  works  of  most  of  the  fathers,  as  well  as  of  the  ancient  classics. 

The  libraries  of  the  monasteries  were  often  called  armoria,  or  armories. 
The  abbot  of  the  monastery  of  Beaugency,  in  the  twelfth  century,  assigns 
the  reason  for  this  name,  by  observing,  that  “libraries  are  as  essential  to 
monasteries,  as  armories  are  to  armies  in  time  of  war.”  The  saying  of 
Mathias  Mittner,  in  the  sixteenth  century,  was  a  stated  maxim  among  the 
monks  of  the  middle  ages  :  Ignorance  is  everywhere  the  mother  of  vice 

The  care  which  the  monks  were  bound  by  their  rule  to  take  of  their 
books,  is  truly  astonishing.  At  Citeaux,  a  reader  was  not  allowed  to  leave 
his  book  alone,  even  for  a  moment;  he  was  obliged  to  replace  it  in  the 
armory,  or  leave  it  in  charge  of  another.  St.  Isidore  directed  that  books 


1  See  Lingard’s  Antiquities  of  the  Anglo  Saxon  ('hurch.  ch.  x. 

2  Innumerabileui  omuis  generis  copiani  (libroruiii)cum  apportasse.” 
8  “  Ignorautia  ubique  multorum  lualoruiu  esi  mater.’’ 


106  LITERATURE  AND  THE  CATHOLIC  CLERGY. 


should  be  retiirned  to  the  libraryevery  evening.  The  rule  of  the  great 
Chartreuse  monastery  directs,  that  “books  be  most  cautiously  and  diligently 
kept,  as  the  food  of  our  souls.”  The  abbot  Riquier  (eleventh  century),  at 
the  close  of  a  catalogue  of  books  he  had  drawn  up,  exclaims:  “  This  is  the 
vrealth  of  the  cloister, — these  are  the  riches  of  the  heavenly  life  !”' 

These  and  similar  facts  may  serve  to  explain  to  us  how  it  is,  that  in  enter¬ 
ing  many  of  the  libraries  of  Europe  at  the  present  day,  we  often  read  over  the 
door  an  inscription,  threatening  excommunication  against  any  one  who  will 
dare  remove  a  book  without  the  proper  authority.  This  is  a  relict  of  mediaeval 
solicitude  for  the  preservation  of  books.  Our  own  carelessness  at  the  pres¬ 
ent  time  is  rebuked  by  the  ardent  love  of  books  in  the  olden  days,  at  the 
ignorance  of  which  we  often  nevertheless  most  unwittingly  sneer. 

Towards  the  close  of  the  fifteenth  century,  Trithemius  collected  no  less 
than  two  thousand  volumes  of  valuable  manuscripts.  In  his  learned  chron¬ 
icles  of  the  abbeys  of  Spanheim  and  Hirschau  in  Germany,  he  shows  how 
much  we  are  indebted  to  the  monks  for  the  preservation  of  ancient  learning. 
Though  the  monasteries  were  generally  held  sacred,  even  by  the  barbarians, - 
yet  they  were  sometimes  destroyed.  In  such  cases,  the  books  were  saved 
by  the  monks  in  preference  to  any  other  property.  Trithemius  tells  us,  that 
when  the  monastery  of  Rossano  was  destroyed  by  the  Saracens,  in  the  tenth 
century,  the  holy  abbot  Nilus  retired  to  Rome,  deeply  chagrined;  and  he 
reckons  the  parting  witli  his  books  the  greatest  trial  which  this  good  man 
ever  had  to  encounter.  In  883,  the  abbey  of  Fleury  was  destroyed;  but 
the  books  were  saved  by  the  care  of  the  monks.  So  also,  when  the  abbey 
of  St.  Gall  was  attacked  by  the  Madgars'  in  the  tenth  century,  the  monks 
fled  to  the  mountains,  carrying  nothing  with  them  but  their  books.  The 
monks  of  Monte  Cassino,  when  this  monastery  was  assailed  by  the  Lom¬ 
bards,  in  685,  had  likewise  the  good  fortune  to  save  their  library.  To  show 
the  value  set  on  books  by  the  monks,  the  following  fact  may  be  adduced. 
St.  Fulard,  abbot  of  St,  Dennis,  in  the  eighth  century,  in  a  schedule  of  the 
property  belonging  to  the  monastery  at  his  death,  places  the  books  imme¬ 
diately  after  the  gold  and  silver. 

The  library  of  Spanheim,  in  Germany,  contained  two  thousand  volumes 
in  the  fifteenth  century.  According  to  the  testimony  of  one  of  its  monks, 
that  of  Novalaise  in  Piedmont  contained,  in  the  tenth  century,  more  than 
six  thousand  books.^  Leland,  the  libiarian  of  Henry  VIII.,  testifies  that 
there  were  seventeen  hundred  manuscripts  in  tlie  abbey  of  Peterborough 
in  England.  He  also  states  that  the  library  of  the  Franciscans  in  London 
was  one  hundred  and  twenty-nine  feet  long,  and  thirty-one  Jeet  broad,  and 
that  it  was  “  well  filled  with  books;”  and  that  the  abbey  of  Wells  had  a 
library  with  twenty-five  windows  on  each  side.  According  to  Ingulphus, 
the  library  of  Crowland  had  seven  hundred  volumes,  when  it  was  burned 
in  1090. 

What  has  become  of  all  these  once  splendid  libraries,  collected  and  pre- 

1  “Use  sunt  divitiae  claustrales,  —  haesunt  opulentiaj  vitae  coelestis!'’ 

2  See  Eugenii  de  hesyls.Anecdota  Sacra,  I’raef.  xxviii. 


WHAT  HAVE  THE  MONKS  DONE? 


107 


served  with  so  much  care  by  the  monks  of  the  darh  ages  ?  Alas  !  they 
have  been,  almost  all  of  them,  dilapidated  or  wholly  destroyed.  The 
Goths,  Vandals,  and  Saracens,  were  not  the  only  enemies  of  learning,  nor 
the  only  destroyers  of  libraries.  Those  who  have  been  so  much  in  the 
habit  of  sneering  at  “monkish  ignorance  and  superstition,”  are  the  very 
ones  to  whom  we  are  indebted,  in  a  great  measure,  for  this  work  of  des¬ 
truction  !  The  reformation  enkindled  a  fire  which  consumed  them.  The- 
spoilers  under  Henry  VIII.  and  Edward  VI.  destroyed  many  of  those 
attached  to  the  abbeys  in  England  and  not  to  multiply  facts,  the  library 
of  St.  Benedict  sur  Loire,  with  five  thousand  volumes,  was  burned  by  the 
Hu  guenots  in  the  sixteenth  century. 

2.  By  what  means  were  the  ancient  libraries  augmented  and  multiplied 
over  Europe  ?  We  answer  unhesitatingly,  that  it  was  chiefly  by  the  pa¬ 
tient  labor  and  perseyering  industry  of  the  monks,  who  flourished  in  the 
darh  ages.  Among  the  ancient  Greeks  and  Romans,  slaves  w'ere  employed 
in  the  irksome  occupation  of  copying  books.  The  task  of  transcribing 
books,  in  Christian  times,  devolved  chiefly  on  the  monks,  as  we  shall  now 
proceed  to  show  by  undeniable  facts. 

Before  the  invention  of  the  art  of  printing,  it  was  very  difficult  to  be¬ 
come  an  author.  He  who  aspired  to  this  enviable  distinction,  imposed  on 
himself  a  labor  truly  Herculean.  He  had  to  travel  from  place  to  place,  in 
quest  of  the  manuscripts  to  which  he  wished  to  refer.  These  he  was  often 
obliged  to  correct,  by  collating  them  with  one  another ;  and,  as  he  was  not 
generally  allowed  to  transport  them  from  their  place,  in  order  to  make  the 
collation,  he  had  frequently  to  stop  and  sit  down  patiently  to  the  task  of 
transcribing  them,  which  was  a  work  of  months, — sometimes  of  years. 
Thus  whole  years  of  indefatigable  industry  were  required,  merely  as  a 
novitiate  to  authorship.  We  doubt  whether  at  this  day  half  the  number 
of  books  would  be  composed,  as  we  know  to  have  been  written  in  the 
middle  ages,  if  so  many  obstacles  had  first  to  be  overcome. 

The  great  scarcity  of  books,  which  mainly  induced  all  this  labor,  con¬ 
tinued  till  about  the  middle  of  the  thirteenth  century.  From  ihis  date,  man¬ 
uscripts  became  more  abundant,  especially  in  the  great  cities  wliere  the 
universities  were  established.  Thus,  in  the  year  1325,  there  were  at¬ 
tached  to  the  university  of  Paris  twenty-three  statlonarii,  or  stationed  book¬ 
sellers,  of  whom  two  were  women.  Besides  these,  there  were  also  a  great 
many  traveling  hawkers  of  manuscripts.  In  order  to  obtain  a  license  to 
sell,  these  booksellers  were  bound  by  law  to  take  an  oath  to  observe  the 
regulations  of  the  university,  which  forbade  them  to  sell  any  books  to 
strangers,  or  to  keep  on  hand  for  sale  any  works  besides  those  commonly 
used  by  the  students.  The  motives  of  these  local  regulations  seem  to  have 
been  :  to  make  the  books  used  in  the  university  cheaper,  by  creating  a 
greater  demand  for  them,  and  to  keep  the  minds  of  the  students  from  be¬ 
ing  distracted  by  reading  woiks  foreign  to  their  course  of  study. 

What  we  have  just  said  of  the  university  of  Paris,  may  be  also  observed 

1  See  Cobbett’s  History  of  the  Keformation,  vol,  ii,  for  abundant  proofs  of  this. 


108  LITERATURE  AND  THE  CATHOLIC  CLERGY. 


of  those  of  Bologna,  Rome,  Padua,  Pavia,  Perugia,  Naples,  Salamanca, 
Valladolid,  Alcala,  Oxford,  and  Cambridge  ;  attached  to  all  of  which  were 
UbliopolcR,  or  booksellers,  bound  by  certain  university  regulations. 

How  were  the  shops  of  these  booksellers  filled  with  books  ?  And  how 
were  the  libraries  of  books,  not  kept  on  sale,  maintained  and  augmented  ? 
In  those  distracted  times,  temporal  princes  had  neither  time  nor  inclination 
to  copy  manuscripts  themselves,  nor  sufficient  zeal  for  letters  to  induce 
them  to  employ  copyists.  The  bishops  and  the  secular  clergy  were  in 
general  too  much  occupied,  to  devote  much  time  to  this  laborious  duty. 
This  task  devolved  chiefly  on  the  monks,  who  lived  in  common,  and  had 
more  leisure.  To  render  the  profession  of  copyist  permanent  and  gene¬ 
rally  useful,  required  the  joint  labor  of  many  acting  in  concert,  under  a 
rule  which  enjoined  obedience,  and  recommended  labor  for  the  love  of 
God.  The  monastic  institute  alone  possessed  these  requisites,  and  offered 
motives  so  exalted  for  patient  industry. 

Prompted  by  views  thus  lofty,  even  religious  ladies  in  the  convents  not 
unfrequently  employed  their  time  in  transcribing  books.  Eusebius,  the 
father  of  church  history,  speaks  of  young  virgins  employed  as  copyists  by 
ecclesiastical  writers  of  the  first  four  centuries.  Even  as  early  as  the  days 
of  Tatian,  in  the  second  century,  the  zeal  of  religious  women  for  letters 
excited  the  bile,  and  provoked  the  satire  of  the  enemies  of  Christianity. 
In  the  fifth  century,  St.  Melania,  the  Younger,  is  praised  by  her  biographer 
for  the  exactness,  beauty,  and  rapidity  of  her  writing.  St.  Caesaria,  and 
her  co-religious  in  the  sixth  century,  acquired  great  reputation  for  the 
same  accomplishments.’  In  the  eighth  century,  St.  Boniface,  the  apostle 
of  Germany,  writing  to  an  abbess,  prays  her  to  copy  in  golden  letters  the 
epistles  of  St.  Peter.^ 

•  We  may  here  remark,  by  the  way,  that  the  art  of  writing  with  golden 
and  silver  ink,  now  disused  if  not  wholly  lost,  seems  to  have  been  very 
common  in  the  dark  ages.  Many  ancient  manuscripts  in  tins  beautiful 
writing  are  still  preserved.  The  writer  of  this  paper,  some  few  years  ago, 
saw  in  the  Vatican  library  at  Rome,  a  splendid  copy  of  a  Greek  New  Tes¬ 
tament  written  entirely  in  letters  of  gold.  It  is  said  to  have  been  executed 
at  Constantinople,  in  the  eleventh  or  twelfth  century. 

Who  that  has  visited  the  ancient  libraries,  has  not  admired  the  beautiful 
penmanship,  the  tasty  marginal  decorations,  and  the  splendid  pictorial 
illustrations,  of  many  among  the  old  illuminated  manuscripts  In  many 
of  these  exquisite  ornaments,  the  delicate  hand  of  woman  is  readily  traced. 
SS.  Hamilda  and  Renilda,  two  Belgian  abbesses  of  the  ninth  century, 
employed  their  time  in  transcribing  manuscripts.  An  abbot  of  tlie  Pre- 
monstrats  in  the  thirteenth  century,  while  traveling  to  collect  books,  pre- 

1  See  Miibillon — Acta  Ord.  S.  Benedicti^  Tom.  i,  p,  668,  et  seq.  2  Epist.  28. 

3  See  on  this  interesting  subject,  two  or  three  articles  in  that  excellent  French  religious  and 
philosophical  monthly  publication,  Annales  de  la  Philosophic  Chretienne.  The  writer  of  those  papers 
proves,  by  abundant  evidence,  to  what  perfection  penmanship  and  miniature  painting  werecarried 
in  the  middle  ages. 


109 


_ 

WHAT  HAVE  THE  MONKS  DONE? 

vailed  on  several  religious  ladies  of  Flanders  to  aid  him  in  transcribing 
them.  * 

All  the  monastic  orders  employed  copyists  among  their  inmates.  St. 
Jerome  and  St.  Ephrem  of  Edessa,  strongly  recommended  this  useful  oc* 
cupation  to  the  eastern  cenobites.  The  monks  of  St.  Martin  of  Tours  had 
no  other  manual  labor. ^  In  the  sixth  century,  St.  Ferreol  laid  down  this 
rule  for  his  monks  :  “let  him  paint  the  page  with  his  hand,  who  does  not 
cultivate  the  earth  with  the  plow.”®  About  the  same  time,  the  retired 
Roman  senator  Cassiodorus,  while  in  his  ninety-third  year,  wrote  in  his 
cloister  of  Virarium  a  special  treatise  on  orthography.  He  was  enthu¬ 
siastic  in  recommending  to  the  monks  the  employment  of  transcribing 
books.  He  calls  it  a  godlike  occupation,  “multiplying  celestial  words, 
speaking  to  the  absent,  wounding  Satan.”  Thus  was  the  painful  labor  of 
the  copyist  ennobled  and  hallowed  by  the  lofty  motives  of  religion  ! 

Next  came  the  Benedictines,  who,  according  to  the  testimony  of  St. 
Gregory  the  Great,  were  engaged,  from  the  very  infancy  of  their  order, 
“in  tilling  the  soil,  and  in  transcribing  manuscripts.”  We  have  already 
seen,  from  Protestant  authority,  how  much  Literature  is  indebted  to.  this 
illustrious  order.  Every  monastery  had  a  Scriptorium,  or  a  hall  specially 
set  apart  for  copying  books.  Alcuin  recommends  to  those  engaged  in  this 
occupation  the  strictest  silence,  in  order  to  prevent  mutual  interruption, 
and  to  avoid  dissipation  of  the  mind,  which,  during  so  noble  an  employ¬ 
ment,  should  be  centered  in  God  !  The  greater  monasteries  generally  em¬ 
ployed  at  least  twelve  copyists.  For  this  duty,  not  only  the  younger 
monks,  but  often  those  of  greater  age  and  celebrity, — such  as  Alcuin, 
Dunstan,  etc.,  were  selected. 

The  monks  were  not,  in  fact,  mere  blind  copyists  ;  they  were  often  men 
of  learning,  who  carefully  collated  and  corrected  the  manuscripts  they 
were  engaged  in  transcribing.  As  early  as  the  sixth  century,  one  of  the 
oldest  monks  of  the  monastery  of  Mesmin,  near  Orleans  in  France,  was 
employed  in  arranging  and  collating  the  books  of  the  monastic  library.'* 
Alcuin,  in  the  ninth  age,  was  employed  by  Charlemagne  in  collating  the 
manuscripts  of  the  Bible,  with  a  view  to  its  correction.  Charlemagne 
himself  devoted  part  of  his  time  to  comparing  various  manuscripts  of  the 
four  Gospels.  About  the  same  time.  Lupus,  abbot  of  Ferrieres,  em¬ 
ployed  his  leisure  hours  in  transcribing  and  collating  the  manuscripts  of 
the  library  belonging  to  his  monastery.  He  mentions  Sallust  and  other 
classical  works,  on  which  he  was  thus  laboring.®  In  his  Letters,  he  thanks 
Ansbald,  abbot  of  Prum,  for  a  copy  of  Cicero’s  Epistles ;  and  Adalpard, 
for  a  revised  copy  of  Macrobius. 

One  of  the  greatest  literati  of  the  middle  ages,  was  the  monk  Gerbert, 
afterwards  Pope  Sylvester  II.  In  one  of  his  many  Epistles,®  he  earnestly 

1  Le  Beuf,  Autogr.  c.  1.  2  Sulpitius  Severus,  Vita  S.  Martini — Tii. 

3  “  Pagmam ,  pingat  digito,  qui  terram  non  proscindit  aratro." 

4  See  Petit  Radel,  Bibliotheq.  p.  46. 

5  Epist.  ad  Regimbert,  104.  6  Epistola,  7. 

0 


• 

110  LITERATURE  AND  THE  CATHOLIC  CLERGY. 

recommended  a  revision  and  correction  of  the  works  of  Pliny, — a  labor, 
says  he,  which  required  great  knowledge  and  critical  skill.  St.  Anselm, 
writing  to  the  archbishop  of  Canterbury,  begs  the  loan  of  various  books  for 
the  use  of  the  monastery  of  Bee  in  Normandy,  over  which  he  then  pre¬ 
sided  ;  but  he  desires  that  only  the  most  correct  copies  be  sent.*  Lan- 
franc’s  revised  edition  of  the  holy  Scriptures  is  well  known  by  the 
learned,  who  justly  prize  it  for  its  accuracy.  In  the  Grand  Chartreuse, 
the  corrections  to  be  made  by  the  copyists  were  decided  on  in  full  chapter 
of  the  monastery. 

The  armarius  bihliothecarius,  or  librarian,  was  an  officer  of  exalted 
dignity,  both  at  court  and  in  the  libraries,  especially  in  those  of  the  monks. 
He  had  under  his  supervision  a  number  of  skillful  copyists.  The  distance 
of  place,  and  the  difficulty  of  communication  in  those  unsettled  times, 
were  great  obstacles  to  the  general  collation  and  correction  of  manuscripts 
These  difficulties  were,  however,  boldly  met,  and  courageously  overcome 
by  the  monks.  Books  were  often  interchanged.  Thus  Servatus  Lupus  and 
Eginhard  were  in  the  habit  of  exchanging  works  between  their  respective 
monasteries  of  Ferrieres  and  Fulda.  The  former,  in  a  letter  to  the  Abbot 
Alsig  of  York,  asks  for  the  loan  of  the  works  of  Quintillian,  as  also  of 
various  works  of  St.  Jerome,  Bede,  and  other  fathers ;  and  he  proposes  a 
bond  of  the  holiest  friendship,  to  be  based  upon  the  intercommunication 
of  prayers  and  books  between  the  two  monasteries  of  Ferrieres  and 
York. 

Besides  the  Scriptorium,  the  monasteries  possessed  various  other  re¬ 
sources  for  augmenting  their  libraries.  The  liberality  of  princes  and  of 
the  people  was  often  successfully  appealed  to,  for  this  laudable  purpose. 
Certain  seignorial  rights  over  the  territory  adjoining  them,  were  another 
abundant  resource.  Many  monasteries  had  also  special  rules  contemplating 
the  same  object.  Some  required  the  novice,  at  his  entrance  into  the  reli¬ 
gious  order,  to  contribute  something  towards  the  library,  or  to  furnish  a 
copy  of  some  work  which  was  rare.  Others  had  a  rule  which  required 
scholars  frequenting  the  monastic  schools,  to  furnish  each  year  two  volumes 
of  manuscripts  transcribed  by  themselves.  By  all  these  means,  and  above 
all,  by  the  patient  industry  of  the  monks,  the  monastic  libraries  became 
the  richest  treasures  of  Literature  in  the  middle  ages.  In  what  is  by 
many  considered  the  darkest  and  most  barren  age  of  this  period, — the 
tenth  century, — we  have  already  seen  that  the  library  of  St.  Benedict  sur 
Loire  had  five  thousand  volumes;  and  that  of  Novalaise,  in  Piedmont, 
upwards  of  six  thousand. 

Throughout  that  whole  period,  Italy  was  the  center  of  Literature,  as 
well  as  the  grand  repository  of  books.  The  zeal  of  the  Roman  Pontifis- 
for  the  diffusion  of  learning,  and  for  the  distribution  of  books  throughout 
the  Christian  world,  canjiot  be  sufficiently  appreciated  and  admired.  St. 
Gregory  the  Great  was  written  to  repeatedly  on  this  subject,  from  Gaul 
and  even  from  Alexandria.^  St.  Martin  I.  received  petitions  for  books 

1  8.  Anselnii,  Epistolw,  b.  i,  43.  2  S.  Gregorii,  Epistolae,  xl,  66. 


^\)1AT  HAVE  THE  MONKS  DONE? 


Ill 


from  Belgium  and  from  Spain.*  Pope  Paul  I.  was  asked  by  Pepin  for 
Greek  works,  tx)  be  placed  in  the  library  of  St.  Dennis :  among  them  were 
Aristotle,  a  treatise  on  Geometry,  probably  Euclid,  and  many  others. 
Gerbert  wrote  no  less  than  thirteen  Epistles,^  some  of  them  to  Roman  Pon¬ 
tiffs,  to  ask  for  books.  Among  the  works  he  most  desired,  were  “  Mami- 
,  lius, — de  Astronomia,'*  “  Victorinus, — de  Rhetorica,”  and  those  of  Lupitus 
of  Barcelona. 

We  have  thus  endeavored  to  show,  both  from  Protestant  authority,  and 
from  original  documents, — What  the  Catholic  Clergy,  and  especially  the 
Monks,  have  done  for  Literature.  The  facts  we  have  alleged  must  be 
blotted  from  the  pages  of  history,  before  we  can  excuse  many  Protestant 
historians  for  charging  the  Catholic  Church  with  fostering  ignorance,  and 
for  habitually  sneering  at  “monkish  indolence  and  superstition.”  W^ithout 
the  generous  and  patient  labors  of  these  much  abused  men,  how  many  of 
the  works  of  the  ancients,  think  you,  would  have  been  transmitted  to  us? 
Without  them,  the  middle  ages  would  have  been  a  yawning  gulf,  which 
would  have  swallowed  up  all  the  literary  treasures  of  antiquity.  Without 
their  indefatigable  industry,  we  would  not  now  be  able  to  feast  on  the 
eloquence  of  Cicero  and  Demosthenes,  nor  to  be  charmed  with  the  beauti¬ 
ful  strains  of  Homer  and  Virgil. 

The  monks  have  been  often  charged  with  wantonly  destroying  many  of 
the  most  valuable  classical  works  of  antiquity,  in  order  to  use  the  parch¬ 
ment  on  which  they  were  written  for  copying  out  comparatively  insignifi¬ 
cant  treatises  on  piety,  or  legends  of  the  saints.  But  is  it  either  just  or 
fair  to  charge  on  the  whole  body  of  monks  what  was  done  by  very  few  of 
their  members,  and  by  these  only  when  pressed  for  the  want  of  writing 
material  necessary  for  transcribing  books  in  daily  use  among  them  ?  ^  Are 
we  to  lose  sight  of  the  general,  persevering,  and  almost  inconceivable 
literary  labors  of  this  illustrious  body  of  men,  merely  because,  here  and 
there,  an  ignorant  monk  could  not  properly  appreciate  a  work  of  the  ancient 
classics  ? 

Besides,  how  can  the  accusers  of  the  monks  prove,  that  in  more  than 
one  or  two  instances  any  classical  work  was  really  lost,  even  for  a  time,  by 
the  very  rare  act  of  copying  another  work  on,  the  same  parchment  ?  How 
can  they  show  that  when  this  took  place,  there  was  only  one  copy  of  the 
work  thus  mutilated,  in  the  world?  Yet  they  should  establish  all  this  to 
make  good  their  accusation. 

Again ;  in  naost  of  the  instances  in  which  we  know  of  this  abuse  having 
occurred,  the  original  work  was  not  destroyed,  but  only  obscured.  And 
who  was  it  that  taught  Europe  how  to  decipher  those  hitherto  hidden 
writings?  Who,  by  skill  and  patient  industry,  revealed  the  hidden  mys¬ 
teries  of  the  Palimpsests,  and  discovered  the  lost  work  of  Cicero, — De 

1  Baronius,  Annales  ad  Ann,  649.  2  Ep.  130,  et  aliae. 

3  Aft<r  the  subjugation  of  Egypt  by  the  Sar*cens,  in  the  seventh  century,  the  supply  of  papyrus 
•was  cutoff,  and  Europe  suffered  greatly  from  the  scarcity  of  writing  material.  Muratori  thinks 
that  wc  are  to  ascribe,  in  a  great  measure,  to  the  fact  just  mentioned  the  subsequent  decline  of  let¬ 
ters  in  Europe. 


112  LITERATURE  AND  THE  CATHOLIC  CLERGY. 


Republica?  Was  it  one  of  the  loudly  boasting,  and  bitterly  sneering 
literati  of  Protestant  Germany  or  England?  No.  It  was  an  ex-Jesuit, — • 
a  Roman  priest,  living  at  Rome, — afterwards  Cardinal  Mai!  And  this 
was  but  one  of  his  splendid  literary  achievements  ! ' 

To  conclude  ;  it  was  a  monk, — Roger  Bacon, — who  first  discovered 
and  explained  those  principles  which,  a  little  later,  led  another  monk, — 
Schwartz,  of  Cologne, — to  invent  gunpowder;  and  which,  more  fully 
developed  some  centuries  afterwards  by  the  great  Catholic  philosopher, 
Galileo,  enabled  him  to  invent  the  microscope  and  the  telescope.  It  was 
a  monk, —  Salvino  of  Pisa, — who,  in  the  twelfth  century,  invented  spec¬ 
tacles  for  the  old  and  for  the  shortsighted.  To  the  monks, —  Pacifico  of 
Verona,  the  great  Gerbert,  and  William,  abbot  of  Hirschau, — we  owe  the 
invention  of  clocks,  some  time  between  the  tenth  and  twelfth  centuries. 
It  was  the  monks,  who  in  the  middle  ages,  taught  the  people  agriculture, 
and  who,  by  their  skillful  industry,  reclaimed  whole  tracts  of  waste  land. 
It  was  the  monks  who  first  cultivated  botany,  and  made  known  the  hidden 
medicinal  properties  of  plants.  It  is  to  the  monks,  that  we  are  in  all 
probability  indebted  for  the  paper  on  which  we  write. 

It  was  the  monk  Gerbert;  who  first  introduced  into  Europe  the  arith¬ 
metical  numbers  of  the  Arabs,  A.  D.  991,  and  who  thus  laid  the  foundation 
of  arithmetical  and  mathematical  studies.  It  was  a  Spanish  Benedictine 
monk, — Pedro  da  Ponce, — who,  A.  D.  1570,  first  taught  Europe  the  art 
of  instructing  the  deaf  and  dumb.  It  was  a  French  Catholic  priest, — the 
Abbe  Haiiy,' — who,  in  a  work  published  towards  the  close  of  the  last 
century,  first  unfolded  the  principles  of  the  modern  science  of  mineralogy. 
It  was  a  Catholic  priest, — Nicholas  Copernicus, — who,  in  the  beginning 
of  the  sixteenth  century,  promulgated  the  theory  of  a  system  of  the  world, 
appropriately  called  after  him,  the  Copernicariy  which  is  now  generally 
received,  and  which  led  to  the  brilliant  discoveries  of  Kepler  and  Galileo, 
and  formed  the  basis  of  the  splendid  mathematical  demonstrations  of 
Newton  and  La  Place. 

Finally,  it  is  to  the  missionary  zeal  of  Catholic  priests  that  we  are 
indebted  for  most  of  our  earliest  maritime  and  geographical  knowledge. 
The  Catholic  priest  always  accompanied  voyages  of  discovery  and 
expeditions  of  conquest ;  often  stimulating  the  former  by  his  zeal  for  the 
salvation  of  souls,  and  softening  down  the  rigors  of  the  latter  by  the 
exercise  of  his  heroic  charity.  Catholic  priests  were,  at  all  times,  the 
pioneers  of  civilization  ;  and  the  Cross  always  accompanied,  it  sometimes 
went  before,  the  banner  of  mere  earthly  dominion. 

1  Those  who  may  wish  to  see  more  on  this  highly  interesting  subject,  are  referred  to  Bingham 
De  Antiquis  Ecclesiae  Scholis  et  Bibliothecis,  tome  iii ;  to  Hospinianus,  De  Templis  ;  to  Komeier,  D« 
Bibliothecis  ;  to  Mabillon,  De  Studiis  Monasticis.  and  Acta  Ord.  S.  Benedicti ;  and  to  a  series  of  Tery 
learned  articles  on  the  subject,  in  some  late  numbers  of  the  Annales  de  la  Philosophie  Chretienue 
already  mentioned. 


VI.  SCHOOLS  AND  UNIVERSITIES  IN  THE  “DARK” 

AGES. 


Protestant  boasting — Light  and  darkness— Revival  of  letters  and  the  Reformation — Early  and  recent 
persecution  of  slander  compared — Gibbon — Protestant  theory — Lame  argument — Early  Christian 
Schools — Plato  and  Aristotle — Irish  Schools — Afid  Irish  Scholars — Cathedral  Schools — Char¬ 
lemagne  and  Alfred — Councils  ordering  the  erection  of  Schools — The  monasteries  -  And  nioiiastic 
Schools — What  was  therein  taught — Schools  for  the  nobility— Signing  in  cipher— Female  Acade¬ 
mies —  Literary  ladies — Universities — In  Italy— England — And  France  —  Statement  of  Danielo 
examined — Curious  incident  iu  the  history  of  the  University  of  Paris — Three  qualities  of  mediajval 
Schools  and  Universities  stated  and  established — Who  first  founded  Free  Schools  ?  — Glance  at 
modern  Universities, 


Of  all  the  puffs  of  this  puffing  age,  none  has  been  louder  or  of  longer 
continuance,  than  that  which  has  vaunted  the  triumphs  of  Protestantism  in 
the  matter  of  education.  By  dint  of  constant  boasting,  Protestant  writers 
have  almost  persuaded  the  world,  that  its  rise  from  barbarism,  its  enlight¬ 
enment  in  literature,  its  progress  in  science  and  art,  its  present  civilization, 
are  all  ascribable  to  the  revolution,  called  by  its  friends  the  reformation  ;  and 
tliat  before  that  blessed  event,  all  was  darkness  and  wide-spread  desola¬ 
tion.  The  Church  sat  down  in  the  midst  of  this  darkness,  quite  at  home 
and  at  her  ease  :  she  made  no  effort  to  dissipate  the  gloom  ;  she  fostered 
it  rather,  as  the  thing  above  all  others  most  suited  to  her  wicked  purpose, 
of  infusing  into  the  minds  of  men  the  deadly  poison  of  error  and  super¬ 
stition  ! 

Such  is  the  proudly  boasting  theory,  which  Protestant  writers  have 
sought  to  establish,  rather  by  bold  and  reckless  assertion,  than  by  calm 
and  solid  argument.  V erily,  if  history  did  not  inform  us,  that  a  Catholic 
first  invented  steam  navigation,'  we  should  be  greatly  tempted  to  ascribe 
that  invention  also  to  the  reformation  !  Since  this  religious  revolution, 
there  has  been  in  the  world  one  continual  puff  !  puff' ! !  puff !  !  ! — and, 
amidst  the  accompanying  noise  and  smoke,  men’s  minds  have  been  scarcely 
calm  enough  to  form  a  correct  judgment  on  the  true  facts  of  history.  The 
Catholic  Church,  on  the  contrary,  has  boasted  little,  and  done  much  ;  with¬ 
out  vaunting  her  literary  triumphs,  she  has  really  been  the  foundress  of 
Schools  and  Universities,  the  fosterer  of  arts  and  sciences,  and  the  mother 
of  inventions ;  as  will  abundantly  appear,  we  think,  from  the  fact  embo- 


1  Rliisco  do  Garay,  a  Spaniard,  first  constructed  a  Steam  Engine  for  purposes  of  navigation,  and 
in  the  year  1543,  he  made  a  successful  experiment  with  .it  in  the  harbor  of  Barcelona,  before  Charles 
V.  and  all  his  court,  and  in  presence  of  the  whole  city.  The  vessel  with  which  he  tried  his  experi¬ 
ment  was  of  200  barrels  [tons?]  burden.  See  Naverette — ‘‘Colleccion  de  Viages,”  and  “  A  year  io 
Spain,-’  vol.  i,  p.  47. 

0  2 


11 


113 


114 


SCHOOLS  AND  UNIVERSITIES 


died  in  tliis  Essay.  Before  Protestantism  was  ever  heard  of,  she  had 
struggled  single-handed  for  centuries  against  ignorance  and  barbarism. 
She  had  already  achieved  a  splendid  triumph  over  these  evils,  some  time 
before  the  dawn  of  the  reformation.  The  brilliant  literary  age  of  Leo  X., 
which  was  at  its  meridian  of  glory  when  Luther  began  his  revolt,  has  never 
been  surpassed,  —  if  even  rivaled, — by  Protestants  at  any  subsequent 
.  epoch. 

Were  this  the  place  for  such  an  investigation,  facts  might  be  accumu¬ 
lated  to  show,  that  the  reformation,  instead  of  advancing,  retarded  the 
progress  of  learning  for  a  whole  century.  Amidst  the  confusion,  angry 
polemics,  and  bloody  civil  wars,  to  which  that  revolution  gave  rise,  men 
had  neither  time  nor  inclination  to  apply  to  the  cultivation  of  letters.  Great 
minds  which,  during  “  Leo’s  golden  days,”  had  directed  all  their  energies 
to  literary  pursuits,  were  then  destined  to  consume  their  strength  in  acri¬ 
monious  religious  controversy.  Instead  of  drinking  at  the  pure  fountains 
of  Helicon,  they  were  doomed  to  slake  their  thirst  at  the  troubled  waters 
of  controversial  debate.  The  history  of  the  sixteenth  and  seventeenth  cen¬ 
turies,  remarkably  sterile  in  literary  improvement  and  invention,  compared 
with  the  two  previous  ones,  affords  a  striking  demonstration  of  this 
position. 

In  more  modern  times,  in  our  own  age  and  country,  the  course  pursued 
i^by  Protestant  writers  towards  the  Catholic  Church,  on  the  subject  of 
education,  has  been  singularly  unjust  and  inconsistent.  Sometimes  they 
•accuse  her  of  fostering  ignorance,  and  at  others,  of  monopolizing  education. 
These  two  charges  are  also  not  unfrequently  made  in  the  same  breath, 
and  in  reference  to  the  same  time  and  place  !  In  proof  of  this  assertion,  we 
confidently  appeal  to  the  line  of  argument  adopted  by  the  Protestant  reli¬ 
gious  press  in  the  United  States,  during  the  last  quarter  of  a  century. 
Whatever  rule  of  conduct  she  pursues,  the  Catholic  Church  cannot  please 
these  fastidious  gentry  of  the  Protestant  press  and  pulpit.  Does  she  rear 
Schools  and  Colleges  all  over  the  land,  going  even  beyond  her  means  to 
bring  education  to  the  door  of  the  humblest  citizen  ?  The  cry  is  at  once 
raised,  that  she  wishes  to  monoplize  education,  and  to  use  the  infiuence 
thus  obtained  in  order  to  make  proselytes  to  her  creed.  Does  she  make 
no  extraordinary  efforts  in  behalf  of  learning  ?  The  old  stereotype  charge 
lis  rung  in  our  ears,  that  she  means  to  foster  ignorance.  Placed  in  a. 
dilemma,  analogous  to  that  of  her  divine  Founder  and  Spouse,  while  He 
'was  laboring  for  the  redemption  of  mankind  in  the  land  of  Israel,  she  may 
•apply  His  language,  in  addressing  the  people  of  this  age  of  boasted  enlight¬ 
enment;  “  But  whereunto  shall  I  esteem  this  generation  to  be  alike  ?  It  is 
like  children  sitting  in  the  market  place,  who  cry  out  to  their  companions 
and  say,  ‘We  have  piped  to  you,  and  you  have  not  danced;  we  have 
lamented,  and  you  have  not  mourned.  ’  ”  ‘ 

The  charge  preferred  against  the  Church, — of  en(;ouraging  ignorance, — 
is  as  old  as  Christianity.  The  Christians  of  the  first  three  centuries  were 

1  St.  Math,  xi,  16.  seq. 


IN  THE  “dark”  ages. 


115 


sneered  at  for  their  poverty  and  their  want  of  learning.  This  calumnious 
accusation  is  repeated  over  and  over  again,  with  singular  gusto,  by  that 
heartless  and  sneering  infidel,  Gibbon ;  whose  grandiloquent  style  and  well 
rounded  periods  have  contributed,  perhaps  more  than  the  writings  of  any 
other  enemy  of  Christianity,  to  poison  the  minds  of  youth,  and  to  foster 
real  ignorance,  under  the  pretext  of  promoting  philosophy.  The  greediness 
with  which  this  and  similar  works  are  sought  for  and  devoured  in  Pro¬ 
testant  communities,  is  one  out  of  many  proofs,  that  all  errori.^s  sympathize 
with  one  another.  Such  works  meet  with  very  little  sympathy  in  Catholic 
countries.  In  fact,  the  best  refutation  of  the  insidious  history  of  “the 
Decline  and  Downfall  of  the  Roman  Empire,”  is  the  production  of  an 
Italian  -Catliolic.' 

In  the  fourth  century,  that  arch  enemy  of  Christianity,  Julian  the  apos¬ 
tate,  by  legal  enactments  against  the  education  of  Christians  in  the  Colleges 
and  Schools  of  the  Roman  empire,  sought  to  perpetuate  this  stigma  of 
ignorance.  The  imperial  persecutor  had  the  heartlessness  to  sneer  at  the 
ignorance  of  Christians,  and  to  prohibit  their  education  in  the  same  breath  P 

It  is  a  singular  coincidence  in  the  history  of  mankind,  that  England,  after 
ihe  reformation,  adopted  precisely  the  same  iniquitous  course  towards 
Catholic  Ireland.  By  her  statutes,  it  was  penal  for  a  Catholic  to  teach 
school  in  Ireland ;  and  yet,  as  if  exulting  with  fiendish  delight  at  the  mis¬ 
chief  which  this  iniquitous  law  was  calculated  to  produce,  you  might  hear 
her  loud  and  long  protracted  notes  of  triumph  over  the  ignorance  and 
4  debasement  of  the  Irish; — a  triumph  not  justified,  however,  by  the  facts, 
notwithstanding  every  English  Protestant  effort  to  foster  ignorance  ! 

The  usual  device  of  Protestant  writers  is,  to  accuse  the  Catholic  Church 
of  promoting  ignorance,  especially  during  the  middle  ages,  in  order  that, 
availing  herself  of  the  general  darkness  of  that  period,  she  might  the  more 
easily  establish  her  erroneous  principles.  This  theory  has  been  so  often  and 
so  boldly  stated,  that  it  has  almost  passed  current  as  truth  in  our  enlight¬ 
ened  age.  Does  the  Catholic  ask  the  Protestant  to  inform  him,  when  even 
one  of  the  Catholic  doctrines,  against  which  he  protests,  had  its  origin  at 
any  period  subsequent  to  the  Apostolic  age?  Perhaps  some  other  response 
may  at  first  be  hazarded  :  but  when  driven  from  every  other  position,*  the 
answer  will  probably  be,  that  the  doctrine  in  question  originated  in  the 
Dark  Ages !  And  when  asked  further,  when  and  where  it  was  first  broached 
during  that  period,  the  respondent  shrouds  himself  triumphantly  in  the 
darkness  of  these  ages,  as  in  a  panoply  of  strength,  and  thinks  himself 
clad  in  a  mail  of  proof!  We  have  more  than  once  been  amused  at  such 
exhibitions  of  polemical  skill. 

And  yet  this  argument,  or  rather  subterfuge,  has  not  even  the  merit  of 

1  Spedalieri— “  Kifutazione  di  Gibbon,”  5  Vols.  I’imo.  An  abridgment,  at  least,  of  thia  work 
should  be  given  to  the  English  community. 

2  And  yet  Gibbon,  Tytler,  and  other  historians  much  in  favor  among  Protestants,  are  in  the  habit 
of  eulogizing  this  apostate,  as  the  greatest  philosopher  and  legislator  of  his  age;  while  they  have  little 
but  reproach  and  sneers  to  bestow  on  such  men  as  Constantine  and  Theodosius .  Another  proof  thic 
uf  the  tender  kindred  feeling  existing  amongst  errorists  of  different  shades  of  opinion. 


116 


SCHOOLS  AND  UNIVERSITIES 


speciousness  or  plausibility.  To  borrow  an  expresshe  figure  fiom  the 
schoolmen  of  the  Dark  Ages,  it  is  lame  of  both  feet  —  utroque  claudicai 
pede:  the  premises  are  not  true,  and  if  they  were,  the  conclusion  would  not 
follow.  In  other  words,  it  is  not  true,  that  the  epoch  in  question  was  sc 
dark  as  it  is  often  represented ;  and  even  if  it  had  been  tenfold  more  so,  it 
would  not  thence  follow  that  Christianity  could  then  have  been  more  easily 
corrupted,  than  at  any  other  more  enlightened  period. 

To  begin  with  this  last  position ;  did  Christ  any  where  say,  that  literature 
was  intended  to  be  a  distinctive  mark  of  His  Church?  Or  that  His  promises 
to  the  Church  were  to  depend  for  their  fulfillment  on  the  literary  qualifica¬ 
tions  of  His  followers?  Was  the  promotion  of  human  learning  a  principal 
object  of  His  divine  mission?  Had  it  been  so,  would  He  not  have  selected, 
as  the  heralds  of  His  kingdom,  men  of  talents  and  gifted  with  human  learn¬ 
ing,  rather  than  poor  illiterate  fishermen  ?  Would  He  not  have  sought  out 
and  commissioned,  to  found  His  religion,  the  philosophers  and  rhetoricians 
of  Greece  and  Rome,  in  preference  to  twelve  unlearned  men  selected  for 
this  purpose  from-  the  lowest  walks  of  life  in  Judea?  The  truth  is,  that  “  He 
chose  the  foolish  things  of  the  world,  that  He  might  confound  the  wise,  and 
the  weak  things  of  the  world,  that  He  might  confound  the  strong :  and  the 
mean  things  of  the  world,  and  the  things  that  are  contemptible,  and  things 
that  are  not,  that  He  might  destroy  the  things  that  are  ;  that  no  flesh  should 
glory  in  His  sight.”’  It  was  a  leading  maxim  of  His  kingdom,  that 
^‘knowledge  puffeth  up;  but  charity  edifieth.”^  He  promised,  that  the 
“  gates  of  hell  shall  not  prevail  against  His  Church,”  built  upon  a  rock  f 
without  even  once  intimating  that  the  fulfillment  of  this  solemn  pledge  was 
to  depend  on  the  encouragement  of  human  learning  by  His  Church. 

The  other  foot  of  the  argument  is  equally  lame.  The  Church  has,  in 
fact,  always  promoted  learning,  even  in  the  most  calamitous  periods  of  her 
history.  Men  of  every  shade  of  opinion  are  beginning  to  pay  this  homage 
to  truth.  In  Germany,  in  France,  in  Italy,  and  in  England,  writers  of  dis¬ 
tinguished  ability,  without  distinction  of  creed,  have  applied  themselves 
with  singular  industry  and  success  to  exploring  the  hitherto  neglected 
treasures  of  mediaeval  literature.'’  And  the  man  who,  with  the  result. of 
all  these  literary  labors  spread  out  before  the  world,  will  still  persist  in 
calling  the  middle  ages  dark,  only  exhibits  the  darkness  of  his  own  mind 

1  1.  Corinth.  I.  27,  seq.  2  1.  Corinth,  viii,  1.  3  Math.  xvi.  18. 

4  The  principal  writers  on  this  subject  are  in  Italy,  Muratori  Dissertationes  de  Antiquitatibua 
Medii  JEvi  6  vol.s.  folio  —  Tiraboschi  —  Storia  Della  Letteratura  Ilaliana,  28  vols  32  mo.  —  liettinelli, 
Risorgimento,  della  Letteratura  Italiana,  2  vols.  8  vo.  —  Andres,  Storia  di  ogni  I^etteratura,  6  vols.  4 
to.  —  Hattini— Apologia  dei  Secoli  Barbai  3  vols.  12  mo,  —  besides  many  others.  In  Germany, 

Heeren  —  Ge.schichte  des  studiuins  der  classischeu  Litteratur  im  Mittelalrer  ;  Voigt _ Geschichte 

Preu.s.sens,  etc.  etc.  In  England,  Hallani,  Maitland,  and  others.  In  France,  Guizot,  and.  not  to 
mention  a  host  of  others,  a  learned  writer,  who,  over  the  signature  “Achery,”  has  lately  written  a 
8erie.s  of  very  le.arned  and  able  articles  on  this  subject,  published  in  the  .\nnales  de  la  Philosophic  Chre- 
tienne,  upon  the  treasures  contained  in  which  we  shall  draw  copiously  in  this  Essay.  We  shall  also 
occasionally  avail  ourselves  of  Digby’s  great  work,  “  The  .4ges  of  Faith, in  which  the  reader  will  find 
every  thing  on  this,  and  almost  every  other  subject,  —  “gold,  silver,  precious  stones,  wood,  hay, 
and  stubble.”  put  together  with  at  least  as  much  learning  as  order.  This  work  is,  in  truth,  an 
abyss  of  learning  —  abyssus  multa. 


IN  THE  ‘"dark”  ages. 


117 


on  the  subject,  and  resembles  one  who,  blindfolded  at  mid-day,  should 
persevere  in  declaring  against  all  evidence  that  it  was  as  dark  as 
midnmht ! 

O 

We  have  elsewhere  spoken  in  some  detail  of  the  services  rendered  to 
learning  by  the  Catholic  clergy,  as  well  as  of  the  condition  of  literature 
and  the  arts  in  the  middle  ages.  What  we  purpose  to  do,  at  present,  is,  to 
furnish  a  summary  sketch  of  the  Schools  and  Universities  founded  by  the 
Church  during  that  period. 

From  the  earliest  ages.  Schools  and  Colleges  grew  up  under  the  fostering 
care  of  the  Church.  The  most  celebrated  were  those  of  Rome,  Alexan¬ 
dria,  Milan,  Carthage,  and  Nisibis,  Who  has  not  read  of  the  brilliant 
Christian  Schools  of  Alexandria  in  the  third  century,  where  Christian 
youths,  even  amidst  the  darkening  storm  of  persecution,  were  seen  eagerly 
thronging  the  academic  halls,  to  drink  in  the  teaching  which  fell  from  the 
eloquent  lips  of  the  great  Origen  ?  Their  ardor  for  learning  could  not  be 
quenched,  even  by  the  blood  of  the  almost  numberless  victims,  who  fell 
under  the  sword  of  a  Decius  and  a  Valerian.  Who  has  not  heard  of  the 
glory  shed  upon  the  Schools  of  Carthage  and  Rome  by  the  great  St. 
Augustine,  in  the  beginning  of  the  fifth  century?  Though  Africa  was 
his  country,  yet  this  illustrious  man  preferred  the  Schools  of  Rome,  and  he 
determined  to  reflect  on  this  city  the  luster  of  his  splendid  talents.  “  The 
chief  cause  of  my  going  to  Rome,”  says  he,  “was  my  hearing  that  young 
men  studied  there  more  quietly,  and  that  they  were  kept  in  order  by  a 
better  discipline.”  '■ 

In  these  earliest  models  of  Christian  Schools,  sacred  was  justly  preferred 
to  profane  learning ;  because  the  objects  of  the  former  were  so  much  higher 
and  nobler.  Yet  the  latter  was  also  cultivated,  but  was  made  to  shine  with 
light  borrowed  chiefly  from  the  former.  Great  men  then  thought,  tliat 
human  learning  had  attained  its  highest  standard  of  excellence,  when  its 
teachings  were  most  conformable  to  the  heavenly  wisdom ;  when  it  reflected 
most  the  light  of  divine  Truth — of  God.  But  to  meet,  on  his  own  ground, 
the  votary  of  mere  human  learning,  the  Christian  scholar  was  compelled 
occasionally  to  descend  from  his  lofty  eminence,  into  the  arena  of  the 
Platonic  and  Aristotelian  philosophies.  The  result  of  this  condescension 
was,  however,  rather  to  elevate  pagan  philosophy,  than  to  lower  the  loftier 
standard  of  Christian  wisdom.  At  that  period,  Plato  had  the  ascendant 
over  the  Stagyrite,  particularly  in  the  School  of  Alexandria;  the  latter, 
however,  almost  (Entirely  eclipsed  his  more  brilliant  rival  during  many 
subsequent  centuries.  The  famous  Medicean  School  of  Florence,  in  the 
fifteenth  and  sixteenth  centuries,  restored  Plato  to  his  pre-eminence ;  and 
F.  Schlegel  greatly  prefers  him  to  Aristotle.^  The  Christian  Schools 
borrowed  from  both  what  seemed  best  to  suit  their  purposes ;  and  though 
exclusiv^e  partiality  for  Plato  betrayed  Origen  and  other  professors  into 
some  errors  and  extravagances,  yet  the  influence  of  the  ancient  philosophy, 
Uiiis  moulded  to  the  Christian  standard,  was  generally  highly  beneficial 

1  Coufessioiis,  B.  v.  2  lu  his  Lectures  ou  the  I’hilogophy  of  History.” 


h 


118 


SCHOOLS  AND  U  N  I  V  E  11  S  I  T  I  R  S 


The  Church  allowed  a  reasonable  latitude  to  her  children,  interposing  lier 
authority,  only  when  the  precious  deposit  of  faith  was  endangered. 

For  three  centuries  after  her  conversion  to  Christianity,  Ireland  took  the 
lead  of  all  Europe  in  the  cultivation  and  pronaotion  of  literature.  From 
the  middle  of  the  fifth,  to  the  middle  of  the  eighth  century,  she  carried  on 
what  might  be  called  a  crusade  of  learning  throughout  all  Europe.  While 
the  tide  of  barbarian  invasion  was  rushing  over  the  continent,  burying 
under  its  turbid  waves  the  relics  of  ancient  literature  ,and  civilization,  the 
Emerald  Isle  was  devoting  the  repose,  which  Providence  then  granted  her, 
to  the  practice  of  religion,  the  founding  of  Schools,  and  the  cultivation  of' 
letters,  both  sacred  and  profane.  The  first  of  the  northern  nations  to  enter 
into  the  fold  of  Christ,  she  was  destined  to  become  one  chief  instrument 
in  the  hands  of  God,  for  the  conversion  and  civilization  of  the  others.  A 
brilliant  light  then  shot  up  from  Ireland,  which  illuminated  the  whole 
western  world.  To  give  one  instance  of  the  flourishing  condition  of  her 
institutions  of  learning  during  the  period  in  question,  it  is  well  known,  that 
the  monastery  of  Benchor,  or  Bangor,  contained  no  less  than  three 
thousand  monks,  besides  scholars  almost  innumerable.  Fired  with  en¬ 
thusiasm,  Irishmen  visited  almost  every  country  in  Europe,  leaving  behind 
them  splendid  institutions  of  learning  and  religion, — for  these  two  always 
went  hand  in  hand.  Irishmen  established  the  monastery  and  School  of 
Lindisfarne  in  England,  of  Bobbio  in  Italy,  of  Yerdun  in  France,  and  of 
Wartzburg,  Ratisbon,  Erfurth,  Cologne,  and  Vienna  in  Germany;  —  to 
say  nothing  of  their  literary  labors  in  Paris,  throughout  England,  and 
elsewhere.^ 

In  England,  the  episcopal  sees  became  special  nurseries  of  learning.^ 
The  same  may  be  said  of  these  sees  in  general,  throughout  the  Catholic 
world.  Wherever  a  cathedral  church  was  erected,  there  also  a  School, 
with  a  library  attached  to  it,  grew  up  under  its  shadow.  This  was  not  a 
mere  chance  :  it  was  the  natural  tendency  and  result  of  the  Catholic 
religion.  Catholicity  and  literature  always  flourished  together.  It  was 
also  a  matter  of  canonical  enactment.  Ecclesiastical  councils, — provincial, 
national,  and  general, — made  this  the  settled  law  of  the  Church  during 
the  middle  ages.  It  would  be  tedious  to  allege  all  the  decrees  of  councils 
bearing  on  this  subject,  which  is  referred  to  by  nearly  a  hundred  of  them, 
held, at  different  places,  and  at  different  times.  We  will  only  adduce  a 
few  of  the  more  remarkable. 

A  council  held  at  Rome,  in  826,  under  the  Pontiff  Eugenius  II., 
ordained  that  Schools  should  be  established  throughout  the  world  at 
cathedral  and  parochial  churches,  and  in  such  other  places  as  miglit  be 
suitable  for  their  erection.  Towards  the  close  of  the  eighth  century,  a 
council  convened  at  Metz  enjoined  the  obligation  ot  erecting  Catholic 
Schools,  to  be  conducted  by  the  clergy  living  in  common  with  the  bishop. 

1  For  lull  particulars  on  this  interesting  subject,  see  Moore's  “  Ilistor}’  of  Ireland,”  vol.  i.  See, 

also,  Annales  de  la  Philos.  Chret.  Art.  7,  sup  cit.  ^ 

2  lleeren,  0pp.  i.  65,  who  cites  Henry’s  History  of  England. 


IN  THE  “dark”  ages. 


119 


Tlie  council  of  Mayence,  in  813,  ordered  the  clergy  to  admonish  parents 
under  their  charge,  that  they  should  send  their  children  to  the  Schools^ 
established,  “either  in  the  monasteries,  or  in  the  houses  of  the  parochial 
clergy.”  '  We  gather  from  this  and  many  similar  enactments,  that  Scliools 
were  established  not  only  at  the  cathedral,  but  also  the  parochial  churches," 
as  well  as  in  the  monasteries.  The  synod  of  Orleans,  in  800,  enacted, ‘ 
that  the  parochial  clergy  should  erect  Schools  in  towns  and  villages,  in. 
order  to  teach  little  children  the  elements  of  learning:  “Let  them  re¬ 
ceive,”  this  council  adds,  “and  teach  these  little  children  with  the  utmost 
charity,  that  they  theniselves  may  shine  as  the  stars  forever.  Let  them 
receive  no .  remuneration  from  their  Schools,  unless  what  the  parents, 
through  charity,  may  voluntarily  offer.”  ^  As  early  as  529,  the  coumnl 
of  Vaison  had  strongly  recommended  the  erection  of  similar  Schools.  A 
cotemporary  writer  of  the  life  of  Bishop  Meinwercus,  represents  the 
School  of  Paderborn,  as  “  flourishing  in  both  divine  and  human 
learning.”  ^  )■ 

The  princes  of  the  earth  assisted  the  authorities  of  the  Church,  in 
carrying  out  these  benevolent  intentions.  Charlemagne,  in  one  of  his 
Capitulars,  ordered  the  erection  of  Schools  at  every  cathedral  church 
throuofhout  his  vast  dominions,  which  extended  over  more  than  half  of 
Europe.  His  successor,  Lothaire  I.,  in  823,  promulgated  a  law,  that 
public  Schools  should  be  established  in  eight  of  the  principal  Italian  cities, 
“  in  order  that  an  opportunity  might  be  given  to  all,  and  that  there  might 
be  no  excuse  drawn  from  poverty,  and  the  difficulty  of  repairing  to  remote 
places.”  Half  a  century  later,  Alfred  the  Great  enacted  similar  laws  in 
England.  Thus,  during  the  Catholic  times,  the  Church  and  the  State — 
bishops  and  kings — vied  with  each  other  in  zeal  for  the  erection  of  Schools. 
They  all  felt  that  this  was  the  best,  if  not  the  only  remedy  for  European 
society,  then  torn  by  civil  wars,  or  just  emerging  from  the  confusion 
caused  by  barbarian  invasion.  And  if  their  good  intentions  were  not 
always  carried  into  effect,  the  impartial  judge  will  admit  that  it  was  surely 
not  their  fault,  but  that  of  the  evil  times  on  which  they  had  fallen.  But  for 
these  noble  exertions  to  restore  learning,  what  would  have  saved  Europe 
from  hopeless  barbarism  ?  Even  with  all  those  efforts,  the  struggle 
between  Christian  civilization  and  northern  barbarism,  was  long  and 
doubtful.  What  would  have  been  the  result  had  not  the  Church  interposed 
her  powerful  influence  to  stay  the  torrent  ? 

We  have  seen  the  action  of  provincial  and  national  councils  favoring  the 
erection  of  Schools  :  we  will  now  show  that  general  councils,  representing 
the  whole  Church,  made  similar  enactments.  A  canon  of  the  third  gen¬ 
eral  council  of  Constantinople,  in  680,  commands  priests  to  open  Schools  in 
country  places,  and  to  receive  gratuitously  all  children  who  could  be  in¬ 
duced  to  frequent  them.  The  third  general  council  of  Lateran  was  con¬ 
vened  in  1179  by  Alexander  III.,  one  of  the  greatest  Pontiffs  of  the 

1  Concil.  Moguntinuiii,  Can.  x  2  Concil  Aurelian  .\n.  800,  Can.  xx. 

8  Digby’8  Ages  of  Faiih,  vol.  ii,  pp  412-3, —  Auierican  e<l.,— where  many  tiuular  facts  are  related’ 


120 


SCHOOLS  AND  UNIVERSITIES. 


middle  ages.  It  passed  tlie  following  canon:  “Since  the  church  of  God, 
like  a  tender  mother,  is  bound  to  provide  for  the  poor,  both  in  those 
things  which  appertain  to  the  aid  of  the  body,  and  in  those  which  belong 
to  the  advancement  of  the  soul;  lest  the  opportunity  for  such  improvement 
{^agendi  et  lyroficiendi)  should  be  wanting  to  those  poor  persons  who  cannot 
be  aided  by  the  wealth  of  their  parents;  let  a  competent  benefice  be 
assigned  in  each  cathedral  church  to  a  teacher,  whose  duty  it  shall  be  to 
teach  the  clerks  and  poor  scholars  of  the  same  church  gratuitously  ;  by 
which  means  the  necessity  of  the  teacher  may  be  relieved,  and  the  way 
to  instruction  may  be  opened  to  learners.  Let  this  practice  be  also  res¬ 
tored  in  other  churches  and  monasteries,  if,  in  times  past,  any  thing  was 
set  apart  in  them  for  this  purpose.  But  let  no  one  exact  a  price  for  grant¬ 
ing  permission  to  teach.”  ^  Another  great  Pope  of  the  middle  ages.  In¬ 
nocent  III..  renewed  this  decree  in  1215,  and  extended  the  law  to  parochial 
churches.  Honorious  III.,  and  other  Pontiffs,  followed  his  example. 

Thus,  FREE  SCHOOLS  Were  established  throughout  Christendom  by  the 
authority  of  the  Roman  Pontiffs,  and  by  that  of  general  councils.  The 
Church  promoted  learning  through  her  visible  head,  and  both  in  her  dis¬ 
tributive  and  collective  capacity.  And  be  it  ever  remembered,  that  all 
the  Schools  above  mentioned  were  established  chiefly  for  the  benefit  of 
the  common  people  and  of  the  poor.  In  France  alone,  during  those  ages, 
there  were  more  than  two  hundred  such  Schools  and  Colleges.^ 

The  monasteries  were  powerful  auxiliaries  in  the  cause  of  education. 
Wherever  they  were  established,  the  most  barren  waste  was  made  to  smile 
with  verdure.  Their  retired  situation,  remote  from  the  confusion  and  cor¬ 
ruption  of  cities,  adapted  them  in  a  peculiar  manner  to  the  purposes  of 
education.  The  Christian  youth  could  there  drink  to  satiety  of  the  pure 
waters  of  sacred  and  profane  learning,  far  away  from  the  turmoil  of  the 
world.  His  health  was  invigorated  by  the  mountain  or  country  air  ;  his 
morals  were  preserved ,  by  the  example  and  watchfulness  of  the  monks; 
and  both  literature  and  religion  became  lovely  in  his  eyes.  In  those  troubled 
times  of  civil  feud  and  bloodshed,  the  monasteries,  were  asylums  for  learn¬ 
ing, — green  spots  on  the  surface  of  creation,— ^ which  the  foot  of  the  spoiler 
seldom  profaned.  Who,  that  has  read  the  history  of  the  middle  ages,  has 
not  felt  refreshed  in  mind,  as  he  revisited  in  spirit  the  monasteries  of  Cluny 
and  Clairvaux  ;  of  Corbie  and  Bee  ;  of  Fulda  and  Bobbio, — not  to  men¬ 
tion  a  hundred  other  bright  and  favored  spots  !  The  shadows  of  iSt.  Ber¬ 
nard,  of  Peter  the  Venerable,  and  of  the  abbot  Hugo,  seem  still  to  liover 
over  those  holy  sanctuaries,  and  to  hallow  them  by  their  presence. 

d'here  were  Schools  in  all  the  principal  monasteries.  Some  of  these  were 
for  primary,  and  others  for  higher  instruction.  In  the  formej-,  boys  were 
taught  the  “  Our  Father  ”  the  Creed,  the  Psalms,  Plain  Chant,  Aritlimetio 

1  See  Cabassutius -Notitia  Concil.  in  locum.  Digby  (Vol.  2,  p.  114)givos  an  impcrfecr  synopsig 
■of  the  dot'ree,  which  however  is  marked  a  translation  of  tlie  canon.  Resides,  the  uiargiuui  refer 
•ence  is  inc.  rrect,  and  without  meaning. 

2  For  proof  this,  see  Anuales  de  la  Philos.  Chretienne,  -\rt.,7,  sup.  cit. 


IN  THE 


121 


‘‘Dark”  ages. 

and  Grammar.  In  the  lali'er,  the  moi-e  elevated  branches  of  learning  were 
inculcated;  —  Music,  Madiematics,  Poetiy,  and  the  Greek,  Hebrew,  and 
Arabic  languages.  At  that  period  Grammar  had  a  much  more  ex¬ 
tended  meaning  than  it  has  at  present.  It  embraced,  though  perhaps 
in  less  perfection,  what  was  afterwards  denoted  by  the  term  Humani¬ 
ties,  —  a  full  course  of  instruction  in  the  Latin  language,  which  was,  during 
the  greater  part  of  the  middle  ages,  that  of  the  people,  —  at  least  of  all 
the  educated,  —  as  well  as  of  the  Church  and  of  the  State.  The  laws  and 
ordinances  of  France  were  published  in  Latin  until  the  sixteenth  century. 
Till  the  beginning  of  the  thirteenth  century,  most  of  the  famous  monaste¬ 
ries  in  Europe  were  of  the  Benedictine  order,  whose  services  to  literature 
cannot  be  over  estimated.  In  the  thirteenth  and  fourteenth  centuries,  the 
monastic  orders  of  St.  Dominic  and  St.  Francis  covered  Europe  with  Schools, 
which  were  chiefly  for  the  benefit  of  the  poor.  And  there  is  no  doubt  that 
these  last  named  orders  greatly  promoted  the  rise  of  letters,  and  thereby 
the  advancement  of  civilization.  Speaking  of  the  cathedral  and  monastic 
Schools  of  the  middle  ages,  Hallam  bestows  upon  them  the  following  very 
faint  and  qualified  praise  : 

“  The  praise  of  having  originally  established  Schools  belongs  to  some 
bishops  and  abbots  of  the  sixth  century.  They  came  in  place  of  the  im¬ 
perial  Schools  overthrown  by  the  barbarians.  In  the  downfall  of  that  tem¬ 
poral  dominion,  a  spiritual  aristocracy  was  providentially  raised  up,  to  save 
from  extinction  the  remains  of  learning  and  of  religion  itself.  Some  of 
these  Schools  seem  to  have  been  preserved  in  the  south  of  Italy,  though 
merely,  perhaps,  for  elementary  instruction.  .  .  The  cathedral  and  con¬ 
ventual  Schools,  created  or  restored  by  Charlemagne,  became  the  mealis  of 
preserving  that  small  portion  of  learning  which  continued  to  exist.  They 
flourished  most,  having  had  time  to  produce  their  fruits,  under  his  suc¬ 
cessors,  Louis  the  Debonair,  Lothaire,  and  Charles  the  Bald.”* 

Besides  Schools  for  the  people,  there  were  others,  chiefly  in  the  monas¬ 
teries,  for  the  special  education  of  the  children  of  the  nobility  and  of  kings. 
Meibom,  a  Protestant  historian,  assures  us  of  this  fact.  “  Durinc:  the  aofe 
of  the  Charles’,  of  the  Othos’,  and  of  the  Henrys’,  the  children  of  kings  and 
dukes  were  placed  at  a  tender  age  in  the  Schools  of  the  canons  and  of  the 
monks,  .  .  that  they  might  acquire  a  knowledge  of  the  liberal  arts,  and  of 
the  languages.”*^  Tlie  chronicler  of  St.  Requier,  who  lived  under  the  Car- 
lovingian  dynasty,  tells  us  that  in  that  abbey  were  educated  one  hundred 
youths,  from  the  principal  noble  families  of  the  empire.  Charles  Martel 
founded  the  College  of  Richenon  for  a  similar  purpose. 

The  kings  and  princes  of  the  middle  ages  were  not  then  so  ignorant  as 
they  are  usually  represented.  Charlemagne  and  Alfred  were  both  not  only 
scholars,  but  magnificent  patrons  of  learning.  They  were  the  Medici  of 
the  middle  ages.  The  fact  that  many  of  the  ancient  diplomas  and  other 
public  documents  are  signed  with  the  cipher,  instead  of  the  name  of  a  prince, 

1  Introduction  to  laterature,  etc.  —  1,  27. 

2  See  Ziegelbauer  Opp  Tom.  1  “Sub  aevo  Carolorum,  Othonum,  et  Ilenricorum,  regum  ducum- 
que  liberi  tenelii  adhuc  in  caiionicorum  aut  monachorum  collegia  amandabantur  .  .  ut  liberalium 
artium  et  linguanim  coguitioui  a.^suetierent.'’ 

P 


122 


SCHOOLS  AND  UNIVEllSITIES 


is  no  conclnsive  evidence  that  the  signer  could  not  write  his  own  name.  This 
practice  was  often  a  matter  of  court  etiquette,  originating  in  the  idea,  more 
or  less  common  at  that  time,  that  a  prince  should  write  with  no  othei 
instrument  than  his  sword,'  Those  warlike  nobles,  clad  in  steel,  did  not 
much  relish  the  old  advice,  —  cedant  arma  tog ce}  When  king  Lewis 
d' outre  mer  laughed  at  Foulk  of  Anjou,  for  having  sung  in  the  choir 
with  the  other  canons,  Foulk  answered  bluntly:  “  An  illiterate  king  is  a 
crowned  ass. The  same  was  said  to  Henry  I.  of  England  by  his  father, 
the  bluff  William  the  Conqueror.  This  fact  proves  that  ignorance  was 
deemed  disgraceful  in  a  prince  of  the  middle  ages.  In  the  tenth  century, 
St.  Stephen  of  Hungary  had  his  people  taught  the  Latin  language,  which 
is  still,  to  some  extent,  the  vernacular  tongue  of  that  country. 

The  following  fact  may  serve  to  show  that  ladies  of  rank  also  cultivated 
learning  during  the  period  in  question.  In  the  eleventh  century,  Ingulph, 
who  was  reared  in  the  court  of  Edward  the  Confessor  in  England,  informs 
us,  that  on  returning  every  day  from  school,  the  queen  Egitha  used  to 
examine  him  in  grammar  and  logic,  and  to  encourage  his  progress  by 
frequent  presents.  The  nunneries  did  for  the  girls,  what  the  cathedral, 
parochial,  and  monastic  Schools  did  for  boys  ;  and  every  class,  and  both 
sexes  were  thus  provided  with  ample  means  of  education.'*  The  Latin  lan¬ 
guage  was  understood  by  many  of  the  religious  ladies  of  the  convents:  their 
rules  were  mostly  in  that  language  ;  and  many  small  works  written  in  Latin 
by  nuns  of  those  ages  are  still  extant.®  They  also  occasionally  cultivated 
the  study  of  the  Greek  language,  and  of  philosophy.  Some  nuns  of  Eng¬ 
land  with  their  abbess  Liobe,  a  near  relative  of  St.  Boniface,  the  apostle  of 
Germany,  carried  their  learning  into  the  latter  country,  and  established 
Schools  there  for  the  education  of  their  own  sex.®  In  the  tenth  century, 
Hroswetha,  a  nun  of  Gandersheim,  wyote  Latin  poems,  still  extant,  on  the 
foundation  of  her  convent,  and  on  the  life  of  the  emperor  Otho  the  Great; 
besides  six  dramas  on  ecclesiastical  history.  Though  far  from  being  so 
classical  as  the  ancient  models,  yet  these  poems  are  of  respectable  merit ; 
and  they  prove,  that. in  the  institutions  for  learning  at  that  day,  — even  in 
the  tenth  century,  —  classical  literature  was  extensively  and  successfully 
cultivated,  by  women  as  well  as  by  men. 

Not  only  religious  women,  but  ladies  of  the  world  also  were  not  unfre- 
quently  well  educated.  They  received  their  education  in  the  convents. 
St.  Bernard,  in  the  twelfth  century,  wrote  letters  in  Latin  to  the  wives  of 
counts  and  barons.  The  convent  of  Roncerai  at  Anthers  was  distino-uished 
by  the  number  of  young  princesses  who  were  there  educated.  It  was  in 
this  school  that  Heloise  learned  Latin  and  philosophy.  St.  Gertrude,  of 
Saxony,  ( fourteenth  century, )  extended  her  studies  to  the  classics,  to  which 

1  See  NouTeau  Trnite  de  diplomatique,  p.  361,  —  a  learned  work  by  tlie  Benedictines. 

2  Let  arms  yield  to  the  gown —  tear  to  pence. 

3  Hex  illiteratus  est  asinus  coronatus,  —  Martene,  Collect.  Ampliss.  v.  987. 

4  The  Annales  de  la  Pliilosophie  Chret.  has  a  special  article,  ( vi.)  replete  with  interesting  details,  on 

the  learned  females  of  the  middle  ages.  5  See  Ilistoire  Litter,  de  France,  Tom.  ix.  p.  129,  seqq 

6  MabilloD.  Prof,  in  Saecul.  iii,  Benedict. 


IN  THE  D  ark”  a  GES  .• 


123 


she  was  so  strongly  attached,  as  to  feel  scraples  of  conscience  on  the 
subject.  She  has  left  some  pious  historical  works.*  The  abbess  Herrada 
of  Alsace,  (twelfth  century)  wrote  an  extensive  Encyclopedia,^  which  is 
still  preserved  in  manuscript.  Many  other  facts  of  a  similar  character 
might  be  alleged,  to  illustrate  female  education  in  the  middle  ages ;  but 
these  will  suffice 

Pass  we  now  to  the  Universities  of  the  “Dark”  Ages,  many  of  whicli 
were  fully  organized  in  the  twelfth  century,  and  became  so  numerous  and 
flourishing  in  that  and  the  following  ages,  as  to  excite  our  admiration  and 
astonishment,  even  at  this  day  of  boasted  enlightenment.  The  Schools 
and  Colleges  erected  in  the  larger  cities  gradually  swelled  into  Universi¬ 
ties,  which  received  special  charters  of  privileges  from  Popes  and  princes. 
These  soon  became  foci  of  learning,  which  radiated  the  light  of  literature 
throughout  every  country  of  Europe.  Their  great  number,  and  the  vast 
multitude  of  young  men  from  every  part  of  Europe  who  flocked  to  them, 
prove  most  conclusively  how  great  was  then  the  thirst  for  learning.  Here 
again  Italy  pioneered  the  way.  The  Universities  of  Rome  and  Bologna 
soon  became  famous.  Padua,  Naples,  Pavia,  and  Perugia,  also  had  their 
Universities.  After  the  discovery  of  the  Pandects  of  Justinian  by  the 
Amalfites,  in  the  eleventh  century,  the  study  of  the  civil  law  was  revived 
in  Italy.  The  University  of  Bologna  became,  under  Irnerius,  or  Werner, 
the  great  Law  School  of  Christendom.  Thousands  of  students  from  the 
remotest  parts  of  Europe  crowded  its  halls.  Besides  Italian  youths,  there 
were  occasionally  at  this  University  no  less  than  ten  thousand  foreign 
students.  Padua,  the  Alma  Mater  of  Christopher  Columbus  and  of 
Amerigo  Vespucci,  had  at  one  time  no  less  than  eighteen  thousand  stu¬ 
dents.^  The  other  Italian  Universities  were  also  in  a  highly  flourishing 
condition. 

The  other  countries  of  Europe  boasted  also  their  Universities,  which 
rivaled  those  of  Italy.  England  had  her  Oxford  and  her  Cambridge. 
The  Schools,  founded  in  tliese  two  cities  in  the  ninth  and  tenth  centuries, 
grew  to  be  Universities  towards  the  close  of  the  twelfth.  Tlie  reign  of 
Henry  II.  was  the  Augustan  Age  of  English  mediaeval  literature.  An¬ 
thony  Wood,  the  Protestant  historian  of  the  Oxford  University,  informs 
us  that,  during  Henry’s  reign,  it  counted  thirty  thousand  students  ! 

Spain  was  not  behind  the  other  Catholic  states  of  Europe.  She  im¬ 
proved  on  the  scientific  discoveries  of  the  Arabs,  who,  during  their  long 
rule  over  her  most  beautiful  provinces,  had  established  many  flourishing 
Schools,  and  made  many  discoveries  in  medicine  and  mathematics.  To 
them  all  Europe  was  much  indebted  for  the  impulse,  wliicli  their  exam¬ 
ple  and  successful  industry  gave  to  these  studies.  The  literary  boon 
which  they  bestowed  on  Europe  was  not,  however,  witliout  its  poison. 
They  paid  at  least  as  much  attention  to  the  study  of  alchemy,  of  necro- 

1  Insinnationes  D.  Pietatis  2  Ilortus  deliciarum.  •< 

3  Set!  Eustace's  •‘Classical  Tour'’  through  Italy,  in  i  Vols.  8vo. 

4  Athena;  Oxouienses.  The  I'tiiied  School  of  .\tliens  never  had  so  many  .scholars. 


124 


SCHOOLS  AND  UNIVERSITIES 


mancy,  and  of  astrology,  as  to  that  of  the  useful  sciences.  They  wasted 
as  much  time  and  labor  on  the  discovery  of  the  philosopher’s  stone, 
as  they  spent  in  cultivating  the  sciences  of  arithmetic,  medicine,  and 
astronomy.  To  their  influence,  we  have  no  doubt,  Europe  was  mainly 
indebted  for  the  importance  attached  to  these  foolish  studies  by  many  of 
her  Christian  literati.^  Besides  the  celebrated  Universities  of  Salamanca, 
Valladolid,  and  Alcala,  Spain  could  boast  of  twenty-four  other  Colleges 
of  less  celebrity.  In  addition  to  the  Universities  already  enumerated, 
there  were  various  Schools  of  Medicine  in  Spain,  at  Salerno  in  the  south 
of  Italy,  and  at  Montpelier  and  Paris  in  France.  These  also  gave  a  great 
impulse  to  the  development  of  European  literature  and  civilization. 

The  influence  of  the  Universities  of  the  middle  ages  was  not  confined 
to  the  mere  imparting  of  learning.  They  kept  up  a  constant  intercourse 
in  society,  at  a  time  when  the  masses  had  far  less  communication  than  at 
present.  They  excited  the  emulation  of  noble  youths,  and  opened  to  them 
a  path  to  eminence  and  glory,  far  more  lofty  than  the  battle-field,  which 
had  been  hitherto  almost  their  only  incentive  to  exertion.  Tiiey  thus 
exercised  a  humanizing  influence  on  the  manners  of  an  age  essentially 
warlike.  There  was  room,  too,  for  the  exercise  of  a  species  of  chivalry, 
in  the  intellectual  tilting  matches  of  the  Schools,  no  less  than  in  the  more 
exciting  and  less  refined  tournaments,  where  mailed  knights  broke  their 
spears  against  each  other,  in  pursuit  of  glory.  Post-offices  arose  from  the 
necessity  of  regular  communication,  which  the  Universities,  with  their 
vast  number  of  foreign  students  created.  The  young  men  who  had 
studied  law  at  Bologna,  Paris,  and  Oxford,  on  returning  to  their  homes, 
excited  in  the  minds  of  their  countrymen  an  ardor  for  such  studies. 
Besides,  with  their  increased  knowledge,  they  contributed  greatly  to 
improve  the  jurisprudence  of  their  respective  countries. 

Thus  civilization  received  a  powerful  stimulus  from  the  Universities. 
The  streamlets,  which  issued  from  these  fountain-heads  of  literature, 
irrigated  and  fertilized  all  Europe.  They  were  sources, 

Whence  many  rivulets  have  since  been  turned, 

O’er  the  garden  Catholic  to  lead 

Their  living  waters,  and  have  fed  its  plants.^ 

In  a  learned  Catholic  Magazine,  published  monthly  in  Paris,  we  find  an 
interesting  Review  of  a  work  on  the  University  of  Paris,  lately  published 
by  J.  Danielo.^  This  distinguished  author  has  written  other  excellent 
woiks  manifesting  deep  research  into  the  history  of  the  middle  ages.  Not 
the  least  interesting  of  these  publications,  is  his  “  History  of  Queen 

1  I  cannot  subscribe  to  the  opinion  of  Andres,  (Storia  di  o;?ni  Lett.  vol.  i  ,)  who  enters  into  an 
elaborate  course  of  reasoning,  to  prove  that  Europe  owed  to  the  Arabs  almost  all  her  valuable  dis¬ 
coveries  in  the  middle  ages.  He  was  a  Spaniard,  and  perhaps  his  partiality  for  his  country  inclined 
iiim  to  attach  too  much  importance  to  Ilispano-Arabic  influence  on  the  rise  of  Letters. 

2  Dante,  rarad.  xii. 

8  Tne  work  is  entitled  :  “  Etudes  Literaires,  Philosophiques,  et  Morales  sur  1’  Universite  de  Paris, 
et  sur  les  progres  de  I'esprit  humaiii  au  moyen  age:”  or,  Literary,  Philosophical,  and  Moral 
researches  on  the  University  of  Paris,  and  on  the  progress  of  the  human  mind  in  the  middle  ages.” 
The  Review  alluded  to,  is  found  in  the  No.  of  the  ‘‘Universite  (Jatholique,”  for  Eebruary,  18d2. 


IN  THE 


125 


“dark” ages. 

Blanche,”  the  sainted  motlier  of  St.  Louis  IX.  From  the  Review  just 
mentioned,  we  select  the  following  details  connected  with  our  present 
subject ; 

“We  can  form  no  idea  at  the  present  day,”  says  M.  Danielo,  “of  the 
importance  and  of  the  numbers  of  the  University  of  France  towards  the 
close  of  the  twelfth  century.  Rendered  illustrious  by  Peter  Lombard,  St. 
Anselm,  William  de  Champeaux,  and  Abeillard,  it  had  already  become 
the  light  and  the  rendezvous  of  the  learned,  and  the  resort  of  students  from 
all  Europe.  The  Holy  See  loved  and  protected  it,  as  a  cherished  daughter, 
as  its  faithful  shield  and  champion.  It  was  the  glory  of  the  western 
world  and  of  France,  and  no  institution  in  all  Christendom  was  its  equal. 
Athens  and  Alexandria,  according  to  the  testimony  of  cotemporary  writers, 
never  had  Schools  so  numerous,  or  so  brilliant.  In  fact,  the  number  of 
University  students  often  exceeded  twenty-five  thousand  !  ...  The 

kings  of  France  were  as  zealous  to  foster  its  growth,  as  were  those  of 
neighboring  states  to  diminish  its  patronage.  These  employed  every  kind 
of  intrigue  to  dissolve  this  great  and  illustrious  body,  and  to  cause  the 
remnant  of  its  students  to  pursue  their  education  within  their  own  ter¬ 
ritory.  For  this  purpose  they  instituted  Universities  at  great  expense  ; 
they  endowed  them  with  lands  and  privileges  ;  they  offered  all  kinds  of 
inducements  to  students.  But  their  efforts  proved  abortive.  In  spite  of 
the  prohibition  of  the  emperor  Frederick,  students  continued  to  flock  to  the 
University  of  Paris  from  Germany,  as  well  as  from  England  and  Italy. 
’VVe  should  remark  that  this  University,  besides  the  advantages  of  its 
location,  was  very  accessible  and  very  hospitable.  The  students  soon 
became  acclimated  in  Paris  ;  and  after  having  completed  their  studies,  it 
was  easy  for  the  most  talented  to  obtain  professorships,  and  we  accordingly 
find  more  than  one  professor  from  Germany,  Italy,  and  especially  England, 
filling  with  distinction  the  various  chairs.  Add  to  this,  that,  nearly  all 
the  celebrated  men,  and  many  of  the  Popes,  bishops  and  abbots,  of  that 
period,  were  eleves  and  admirers  of  the  University  of  Paris  ;  many  of  them 
too  had  been  among  its  professors,  and  respectfully  called  it  their  mother.” 

We  have  no  doubt  that  the  above  account  is  substantially  correct, 
though  we  are  disposed  to  think,  that  the  ardent  partiality  of  the  French-'^ 
man  has  in  one  or  two  instances  betrayed  him  into  no  little  exaggeration. 
Though  the  French  University  was  highly  distinguished,  yet  it  had  many 
rivals,  which  equaled,  if  they  did  not  surpass  ’it,  both  in  the  number  of 
their  students,  and  in  the  learning  and  fame  of  their  professors.  Not  to 
speak  of  others,  those  of  Bologna  in  Italy,  and  of  Oxford  in  England, 
could  boast  at  least  equal  antiquity  and  celebrity.  The  former  had  the 
merit  of  reviving  the  study  of  the  civil  law  under  the  great  Werner  ;  and 
as  a  Law  School,  both  for  the  civil  and  the  canon  law,  it  long  continued 
unrivaled.  The  latter  under  Henry  II.  of  England,  whose  reign  com¬ 
menced  about  the  middle  of  the  twelfth  century  (1154,)  reckoned  thirty 
thousand  youths  among  its  students, — a  number  which  that  of  Paris 
never  perhaps  surpassed.  The  statement,  that  “  nearly  all  the  celebrated 
men”  of  that  epoch  were  students  of  the  Paris  University,  must  also  we 
have  no  doubt,  be  received  with  many  grains  of  allowance.  “The  glory 
of  the  western  world  and  of  France,”  had  laurels  enough  already,  without 
snatching  at  those  which  decorated  the  brows  of  her  fair  sisters  in  Italy, 

Spain,  an  1  England, 

P2 


126 


SCHOOLS  AND  UNIVERSITIES 


With  twenty-five  or  thirty  thousand  young  men  from  all  nations  within 
its  wallsj  it  was  natural  to  expect  that  Paris  during  the  middle  ages  should 
become  occasionally  the  theater  of  riot,  growing  out  of  contentions  between 
the  students  and  the  citizens.  If  we  are  to  credit  cotemporaiy  history,  the 
former  often  equaled  the  latter  in  number.  M.  Danielo  gives  us,  from 
Roger  de  Hoveden,  an  English  historian  of  the  time,  a  graphic  account  of 
one  of  those  outbreaks,  which  resulted  in  the  famous  charter  of  rights 
granted  to  the  University  by  Philip  Augustus,  in  1200.  It  seems,  that 
the  German  students  of  that  day  liked  their  social  glass,  almost  as  much  as 
their  successors  in  the  German  Universities  do  at  the  present  time.  One 
of  them,  the  son  of  a  nobleman,  sent  his  servant  to  a  tavern  to  purchase 
wine.  The  servant,  it  appears,  misbehaved,  and  was  chastised  by  the 
tavern-keeper ;  and  in  the  encounter,  the  flask  of  wine  was  broken.  The 
German  students  felt  aggrieved  both  in  their  honor  and  in  their  stomachs. 
They  assembled  in  great  numbers,  repaired  to  the  tavern,  forced  its  doors, 
and  severely  chastised  the  landlord,  leaving  him  half  dead.  The  citizens 
of  Paris,  indignant  at  this  severe  retaliation  of  the  students,  assembled,  and 
led  on  by  Thomas,  the  provost  of  the  city,  an  armed  mob  assaulted  the 
hotel  of  the  German  students.  In  the  conflict  which  ensued,  the  young 
German  nobleman  and  several  of  his  comrades,  were  killed. ‘  The  heads 
of  the  University  repaired  in  a  body  to  Philip  Augustus,  king  of 
France,  and  complained  loudly  of  this  violence.  The  king  at  their  in¬ 
stance  took  signal  vengeance  on  the  provost  and  his  accomplices  ;  and  to 
protect  the  students,  as  well  as  to  prevent  similar  outrages  in  future,  he 
granted  to  the  University  an  ample  charter  of  privileges,  which,  among 
other  things,  exempted  it  from  the  jurisdiction  of  the  provost  and  of  the 
civil  courts,  and  made  it  amenable  only  to  the  ecclesiastical  tribunals.  Un¬ 
der  this  charter,  the  University  continued  to  flourish  for  several  centuries. 
But  half  a  century  later,  its  prosperity  received  a  temporary  check  from 
Queen  Blanche  and  St.  Louis  IX.  The  Pope,  however,  soon  interfered, 
and,  by  his  influence  with  the  French  court,  succeeded  in  having  all  the 
privileges  of  the  University  restored. 

The  reason  of  the  withdrawal  of  the  charter  by  the  sainted  king  and 
queen  mother  of  France,  was  probably  a  zeal  for  the  Catholic  faith,  which 
one  or  two  of  the  professors  made  an  eftbrt  about  that  time  to  undermine. 
The  French  University,  though  generally  “the  faithful  shield  and  cham¬ 
pion”  of  the  Church,  was  occasionally  tarnished  with  heresy  ;  which  did 
not,  however,  affect  its  entire  body,  but  was  confined  to  a  few  of  its  pro¬ 
fessorial  chairs.  The  pride  of  learning  and  the  habit — encouraged  by  the 
Aristotelian  philosophy  —  of  defending  both  sides  of  every  question  for  the 
sake  of  argument,  had  already  betrayed  Gilbert  de  Poree  and  Abeillard 
into  many  errors  and  extravagances  ;  and  even  the  great  “  master  of  the 
sentences,”  Peter  Lombiird,  had  not,  it  was  thought,  wholly  escaped  the 
contagion.  But  the  professors  who,  in  the  thirteenth  century,  were 

1  In  all  fifteen,  says  the  preamble  of  the  charter,  given  us  in  full  by  M.  Danielo 


I  N  T  H  E 


127 


“dark’’  ages. 

« 

betraved  into  the  o-reatest  excesses,  were  Simon  de  Tournai  and  Amaiiry. 
The  blasphemies  of  the  former,  and  the  signal  punishment  which  overtook 
him  in  the  midst  of  them,  are  so  remarkable,  that  we  will  give  the  account 
of  them  in  full,  as  furnished  us  by  the  caustic  Benedictine  monk,  Mathew 
Paris,  a  cotemporary  English  historian.  M.  Danielo  callk  him  the  “best 
historian  of  the  thirteenth  century  to  which  measure  of  praise  we  can 
scarcely  subscribe. 

“A  certain  professor  of  Paris  endowed  with  great  genius  and  a  strong 
memory,  having  for  two  years  taught  the  Arts,  that  is  the  Humanities,  with 
great  success,  directed  his  attention  to  theology,  in  which  he  made  such 
progress  in  a  short  time,  that  he  soon  filled  with  distinction  the  chair  of 
that  faculty.  He  taught  with  great  ability,  and  disputed  with  still  greater 
subtlety.  His  pleasure  consisted  in  handling  difficult  questions  hitherto 
unheard  of,  and  in  resolving  and  explaining  them  with  elegance  and  clear¬ 
ness.  He  had  as  many  hearers  as  the  largest  palace  could  contain.  One 
day,  having  discoursed  very  subtly  of  the  Trinity,  and  having  brought 
forward  the  most  profound  reasons  for  this  dogma,  he  was  obliged  to  defer 
the  conclusion  of  the  argument  until  the  following  day.  All  the  students 
of  theology  in  the  city  were  advised  of  this  ;  and,  being  eager  to  hear  the 
solution  of  so  many  apparently  inexplicable  questions,  they  crowded  to  his 
famous  school  in  mass.  The  professor,  taking  his  seat,  began  by  stating 
in  order  all  the  questions  he  had  hitherto  treated ;  and  those  which  seemed 
to  every  body  unfathomable,  he  explained  with  so  much  clearness,  elegance, 
and  orthodoxy,  that  all  his  hearers  w^ere  in  amazement. 

“  After  this  wonderful  explanation,  those  of  his  disciples  who  were  most 
familiar  with  him,  and  most  eager  for  instruction,  begged  him  to  repeat  his 
questions  and  answers,  that  they  might  be  able  to  take  a  copy  of  them  under 
his  dictation  ;  representing  to  him,  that  it  would  be  an  indignity,  as  well  as 
an  irreparable  loss,  to  suffer  the  light  of  so  much  science  to  be  extinguished. 
But  he,  inflated  with  pride,  raised  his  eyes  to  heaven,  and-  with  an  insolent 
laugh,  exclaimed  :  ‘  0  Jesule!  Jesule  !  Little  Jesus  !  Little  Jesus  !  !  How 
much  have  I  confirmed  and  exalted  thy  law  in  this  dispute  !  But  with 
how  much  stronger  reasons  could  I  not  abase,  weaken,  and  destroy  it, 
should  I  wish  to  be  malicious,  and  take  the  matter  to  heart !  ’  Having  said 
this,  his  tongue  failed,  and  he  remained  without  speech.  Not  only  he 
became  mute,  but  an  idiot,  and  radically  stupid.  He  did  not  teach  or 
discourse  any  more  ;  he  became  the  laughing  stock  of  all  who  were 
acquainted  with  the  fact.  Two  hours  afterwards,  he  was  not  able  to  dis¬ 
tinguish  the  letters  of  the  alphabet.  But  the  divine  vengeance  which 
weighed  on  him  having  become  a  little  mitigated,  his  son,  by  dint  of 
repetition,  succeeded  in  teaching  him  the  Pater  Hoster,  and  the  Credo, 
which  he  learned  by  heart,  and  repeated  stammering  :  but  this  was  all. 
This  miracle  confounded  the  arrogance,  and  repressed  the  boasting,  of  many 
among  the  scholars  and  professors.  This  fact,”  concludes  the  historian, 
“was  witnessed  by  Nicholas  Duffy,  who  was  afterwards  Bishop  of  Dublin, 
a  man  of  great  authority,  who  stated  it  to  me,  and  requested  that  1  should 
relate  it,  that  it  might  not  be  forgotten  by  posterity.’” 

We  will  conclude  this  paper,  by  briefly  adverting  to  some  of  the  distin¬ 
guishing  characteristics  of  Schools  and  Universities  in  the  middle  ages. 

1  Matthew  Paris,  Ilistoria  Maj.  Angliae,  ad  an.  1201.  See  also  Bulaeus  Hist.  Universit  Paris.  Toui. 
III.  p.  8.  Another  Historian,  Thomas  de  Cantimpre,  likewise  a  cotemporary,  substantially  confirms 
the  statement  of  Matthew  Paris.  He  states  that  the  blasphemy  of  Simon  consisted  in  comparing 
Jesus  Christ  with  Moses  and  Mohammed.  (Bulaeus,  ibid.  p.  9.) 


128 


SCHOOLS  AND  UNIVERSITIES 


These  may  be  reduced  to  three:  1.  their  erection  was  prompted  by  religion 
and  charity ;  2.  they  were  generally  free,  and  all  could  frequent  them 
without  expense  ;  and,  3.  without  excluding  mere  human  learning,  they  yet 
attached  far  greater  importance  to  sacred  studies.  We  have  recognized 
many  of  these  features  in  the  facts  already  alleged ;  but  some  additional 
illustrations  may  not  be  wholly  useless  or  devoid  of  interest. 

1 .  Nothing  is  more  certain,  than  that  religion  presided  over  the  erection 
of  those  splendid  institutions  of  learning.  No  other  motive  could  have 
caused  the  raising  up  of  so  many  brilliant  literary  establishments.  Who¬ 
ever  has  studied  the  history  of  those  ages  of  faith,  must  have  observed,  that 
religion  and  divine  charity  were  then  the  most  powerful  stimulants  to 
exertion.  All  other  motives  were  comparatively  powerless.  To  rear 
institutions,  where  the  poor  —  the  favorite  members  of  Jesus  Christ  — 
might  imbibe  literature  hallowed  by  religion ;  to  cause  souls  redeemed  by 
the  blood  of  Christ  to  be  trained  to  virtue  and  learning;  —  this  was  then 
deemed  the  noblest  use  to  which  money  could  be  applied.  The  founders 
of  those  Schools  did  not  court  human  applause  ;  it  was  glory  enough  for 
them,  if  in  the  eyes  of  heaven  “  they  could  shine  like  stars  forever;”  or  if, 
in  consideration  of  their  pious  bequests  for  education,  God  would  vouchsafe 
in  His  mercy  to  blot  out  their  sins.  “We  wish,”  says  St.  Benedict,  the 
founder  of  the  illustrious  order  which  bears  his  name,  ‘‘  to  institute  a  School 
for  the  service  of  the  Lord,  and  we  hope  that  we  have  not  placed  anything 
sharp  or  painful  in  this  institution.* 

Beraudiere,  bishop  of  Perigueaux,  founded  a  seminary  for  poor  scholars 
in  his  own  city,  and  stated  in  dying,  that  he  had  left  to  posterity  his  book, 
his  church  rebuilt,  and  this  seminary  for  the  poor.  “  May  gracious  heaven 
grant,”  he  adds,  “that  posterity  may  receive  great  utility;  and  may  God 
vouchsafe  pardon  for  my  past  sins  !  ”^ 

The  child’s  advancement  in  virtue  was  then  the  greatest  object  of  the 
parent’s  solicitude.  Eginhard  writes  to  his  son,  who  was  at  the  School  of 
Fulda:  “  But  above  all,  learn  to  imitate  those  good  morals  in  which  he 
(your  teacher)  excels;  for  grammar  and  rhetoric  and  all  other  studies  of 
liberal  arts  are  vain,  and  greatly  injurious  to  the  servants  of  God,  unless  by 
the  divine  grace  they  know  how  to  be  subject  to  virtue  ;  for  ‘  science  pufteth 
up,  but  charity  edifieth.’  I  would  rather  see  you  dead  than  abounding  in 
vice.”  St.  Anselm  of  Canterbury,  employed  similar  language,  in  writing 
to  his  nephew  Anselm.^  The  school  rooms  of  the  monasteries  at  Rome 
and  Bologna,  were  sanctuaries  of  piety  ;  tlie  student  always  beheld  in  them 
an  image  of  that  immaculate  Virgin,  who  was  ever  the  patroness  of  Chris¬ 
tian  scholars.  In  fine,  not  to  multiply  tacts,  whoever  will  study  the  history 
of  those  Schools,  will  not  fail  to  remark  that  religion  always  prompted  their 
erection,  and  presided  over  their  destinies.  Every  exercise  was  commenced 
and  terminated  by  prayer.'* 

1  Praef  ad  Rt*gulatn— 2  Qouget.  xvi.  13.  apud  Digby,  Vol.  2,  p.  134. 

3  St.  Anselmi  0pp.  Lib.  4,  Epist.  31. 

4  For  these  beautiful  prayers  recited  before  and  after  the  scholastic  exercises,  see  Digby  Vol.  ii,  pp 
128  and  135. 


I  N  T  H  E  “D  A  R  k”  A  G  E  S  .  l2S 

Instruction  in  most  of  those  Schools  was  wholly  gratuitous.  This 
was  particularly  true  of  the  seminaries  of  Rome,  and  of  almost  all  the 
cathedral,  parochial,  and  monastic  Schools,  erected  by  order  of  ecclesi¬ 
astical  councils.  This  beautiful  feature  in  education  during  the  middle 
ages  was  a  necessaiy  consequence  of  the  spirit  of  Christian  charity, 
which  then  prevailed,  and  wluch,  as  we  have  just  seen,  was  the  main 
spring  of  literary  exertion.  Teachers  in  those  days  wished  for  no  emo- 
himents,  but  the  smiling  approval  of  God  !  Bishops,  kings,  and  em¬ 
perors  left  immense  legacies  for  the  gratuitous  education  of  the  poor. 
Leopold,  Arch-duke  of  Austria,  employed  his  wealth  in  founding  numer¬ 
ous  seminaries  of  learning,  which  he  committed  to  the  charge  of  pious 
and  learned  monks.  Pope  Urban  V.  supported  more  than  a  thousand 
students  at  different  academies,  supplying  them  also  with  books.  The 
celibacy  of  the  clergy  did  more  for  the  erection  of  Schools  for  the  poor, 
than  perhaps  anything  else.  Clergymen  whose  income  exceeded  their 
expenses,  felt  bound  by  the  spirit,  if  not  by  the  letter  of  the  canon  law, 
to  appropriate  the  surplus  to  charitable  purposes,  among  which  the  prin¬ 
cipal  was  the  founding  of  hospitals  and  Schools,  The  forty-four  Colleges 
attached  to  the  University  of  Paris  were  most  of  them  founded  by  clergy¬ 
men,  prompted  thereto  by  religious  and  charitable  motives. 

The  greatest  boast  of  this  age  is  the  founding  of  common  and  free 
Schools.  Catholicity  was  the  real  foundress  of  such  institutions.  Money 
is  now  necessary  for  every  thing — it  is  the  great,  almost  the  only  mo¬ 
tive  of  action.  Teachers  will  not  labor  without  remuneration.  Free 
Schools  cannot  be  established  now,  unless  the  community  be  heavily 
taxed  for  their  support.  It  was  not  so  in  the  good  old  Catholic  times. 
Christian  charity  was  a  coin  which  then  circulated  freely,  supplying  the 
place  of  money.  Alas  !  Charity  hath  grown  cold !  Even  the  poor  must 
now  be  supported  by  taxation  !  Alas  !  for  the  spirit  of  the  ages  of  faith  1 

3.  Many  Protestant  writers  have  asserted,  that  nothing  but  scholastic 
philosophy  and  theology  was  tought  in  the  Schools  and  Universities  of 
the  middle  ages.  No  assertion  could  be  more  unfounded.  True,  those 
sciences  which  spoke  of  heavenly  things  and  of  God,  were  more  warmly 
cherished ;  but  mere  human  learning  was  not  neglected.  The  great 
Alcuin  wrote  to  Charlemagne,  from  Tours,  where  he  was  teaching  :  “  Ac¬ 
cording  to  your  exhortations  and  good  desire,  1  apply  myself  to  minister 
to  some,  under  the  roof  of  St.  Martin,  the  honey  of  the  holy  scriptures. 
Others  I  endeavor  to  inebriate  with  the  old  wine  of  ancient  learning  ;  others 
I  begin  to  nourish  with  the  apples  of  grammatical  subtlety.  Some  I  try 
to  illuminate  in  the  science  of  tlie  stars,  as  if  of  the  painted  canopy  of  some 
great  house  ;  I  am  made  many  things  to  many  persons,  that  I  may  edify 
as  many  as  possible,  to  the  advantage  of  the  holy  Church  of  God,  and  to 
the  iionor  of  our  imperial  kingdom.”  Roger  Bacon  applied  successfully 
to  the  study  of  the  practical  sciences  ;  and  in  the  thirteenth  century  he 
made  many  brilliant  discoveries,  which  would  do  honor  to  this  age.  Al- 

bertus  Magnus  wrote  an  extensive  treatise  on  natural  history,  in  which  he 

12 


130 


SCHOOLS  AND  UNIVERSITIES. 


embodied  all  that  was  valuable  in  the  works  of  Aristotle  and  Pliny,  add* 
ing  many  discoveries  of  his  own.  These  are  a  few  out  of  a  hundred 
examples  that  might  be  alleged,  to  prove  that  human  science  was  culti¬ 
vated  in  the  “  Dark”  ages.  In  all  the  Universities,  mathematics  and  physics 
were  taught,  as  well  as  metaphysics  and  theology. 

How  advantageously  do  not  the  ancient  Catholic  Universities  compare 
with  those  of  later  date  and  of  Protestant  origin  !  Look,  for  example,  at 
the  boasted  Universities  of  Germany.  Drinking,  smoking,  duelling,  and 
secret  associations  are  there  the  order  of  the  day.  Morality  is  banished 
from  them,  and  the  ardor  of  study  is  greatly  abated.* 

1  See  an  able  article  on  this  subject  in  the  North  American  Review  for  AorU,  1842, —  a  Review  of 
a  late  work  on  the  German  Universities. 


/ 


VIL  INFLUENCE  OF  CATHOLICITY  ON  CIVIL 

LIBERTY. 


Terms  defined — What  is  liberty  ? — Which  is  the  best  form  of  government? — Direct  and  indirect  inriu 
ence — Tendency  of  Christian  teaching— Division  of  the  subject — Theoretical  view — Equalizing  ch« 
social  condition — Form  of  Church  government — A  happy  blending  of  different  elementt^  The 
elective  principle — Deliberative  assemblies — Authority  of  the  Pope — Practical  influence  of  the 
Church — In  the  early  ages— In  the  middle  ages— Rescuing  Europe  from  barbarism — Means  em¬ 
ployed  for  humanizing  society — Two  Protestant  testimonies — Slavery  and  the  serf  system — Struggle 
between  the  Cross  and  the  Crescent  -  The  Crusades — Their  influence  on  the  social  condition — The 
Free  Cities— In  Spain — In  Germany — And  in  Italy — Lombard  I>eague — Italian  Republics — Guelphs 
and  Ghibelliues — The  deposing  power — Republics  of  San  Marino  and  Andorra — The  monastic 
institute- Teaching  of  mediasval  theologians — Magna  Charta — William  Wallace  Robert  Bruce, 
and  William  Tell — Influence  of  the  reformation  on  liberty — In  Germany — And  in  England— Cath¬ 
olic  patriots  during  the  American  revolution — Conclusion. 

This  subject  should  be  approached  with  clear  ideas  on  its  nature,  as  well 
as  with  certain  fixed  principles  to  guide  us  in  our  investigation.  These 
principles  are  contained  in  the  title  placed  above,  as  in  a  germ,  and  we  can¬ 
not,  perhaps,  better  introduce  this  paper,  than  by  a  brief  definition  of  ihe 
words  of  which  it  is  composed. 

Liberty^  especially  with  its  qualification,  civile  is  not  an  absolute,  but  a  rel¬ 
ative  term.  It  has  no  fixed  nor  determinate  meaning,  whether  we  regard  its 
etymology  or  its  general  acceptation  among  mankind.  It  implies,  in  general, 
some  exemption  from  external  restraint ;  but  the  amount  of  this  exemption, 
as  well  as  the  quantum  of  restraint  compatible  with  liberty,  can  be  deter¬ 
mined  by  no  absolute  standard.  What  is  called  liberty  in  one  age,  and 
under  one  set  of  circumstances,  would  be  called  slavery  in  another,  and  in  a 
new  order  of  things.  Two  extreme  cases  are,  however,  excluded  by  the 
meaning  generally  attached  to  the  term  :  that  of  complete  external  restraint, 
which  we  call  slavery,  and  that  of  no  restraint  whatever,  either  on  person 
or  action ;  which  latter,  though  it  may  be  thought  to  exist  in  the  untrvam- 
meled  savage  of  the  forest,  never  has  existed  de  facto,  and  in  the  nature  of 
things  never  can  exist,  in  any  well  organized  civil  society.  Between  these 
two  extremes,  the  meaning  of  the  term  varies  according  to  times,  persons, 
and  circumstances. 

The  very  idea  of  government  implies  some  restraint  on  individual  liberty. 
The  compact,  express  or  implied,  between  the  governor  and  the  governed, 
necessarily  supposes  some  sacrifice  of  personal  freedom  on  the  part  of  the 
latter  for  the  general  good  of  the  body  politic.  The  extent  of  this  sacrifice 
must  be  determined  by  the  character  of  the  people  to  be  governed,  and  by 
reflection  on  the  great  end  of  all  civil  governments,  which  is  to  secure  to  the 

governed,  the  possession  of  life,  lionor  and  property.  And  without  ven-' 

131 


132 


INFLUENCE  OF  CATHOLICITY 


luring-  to  pronounce  definitely  on  a  question,  which  has  been  so  long  agitated 
among  the  most  civ  ilized  nations  of  the  earth,  we  may  safely  say,  that  the 
form  of  government,  which  combines  the  proper  security  of  these  great 
objects  with  the  greatest  amount  of  personal  freedom,  is  the  best  in  theory 
as  well  as  in  practice.  In  accordance  with  this  principle,  there  can  be  no 
doubt,  that,  whenever  the  character  of  the  people  can  bear  it,  a  well  regu¬ 
lated  democracy  is  preferable  to  all  other  forms  of  government.  But  while 
a  predilection  for  our  own  cherished  institutions  is  thus  founded  on  reason¬ 
ing  from  first  principles,  the  liberal  mind  will  not  be  led  into  the  vulgar  error 
of  condemning  too  harshly  every  other  form  of  civil  polity.  Each  may  be 
good  in  its  place,  and  in  reference  to  the  people  for  whom  it  is  appointed. 
Governments,  like  garments,  must  suit  the  persons  for  whom  they  are 
designed. 

When  we  speak  of  the  influence  of  Catholicity  on  civil  liberty,  we  are 
not  to  be  understood  as  implying  that  this  influence  is  always  direct,  or  that 
it  is  a  primaiy  object  of  our  holy  religion.  Christ  did  not  come  to  decide 
the  complicated  problems  of  human  governments;  His  mission  had  a 
higher,  —  a  holier  purpose.  He  came  not  to  pronounce  on  the  political 
difierences  existing  among  mankind,  but  to  establish,  a  divine  system, — a 
kingdom  not  of  this  world,  —  into  which  all  were  admissible,  no  matter 
under  what  form  of  government  Providence  might  have  cast  their  lot.  One 
cannot  be  a  good  Christian  without  being  a  good  citizen ;  and  all  that  our 
blessed  Saviour  is  recorded  to  have  said  on  this  subject,  is  that  remarkable 
answer  of  his  to  the  Scribes  and  Pharisees:  “Render,  therefore,  unto  Ctesar 
the  things  that  are  Caesar’s,  and  unto  God  the  things  that  are  God’s.”* 

But  if  Christianity  was  not  intended  to  have  a  direct,  it  at  least  has  had 
a  most  powerful  indirect  influence  on  civil  governments.  By  elevating  and 
eiTOobling  man’s  nature, —  by  dissipating  the  errors  of  his  mind,  and 
expanding  the  affections  of  his  heart,  it  has  necessarily  promoted  even  his 
earthly  happiness,  and  improved  his  social  condition.  By  slow,  but  steady 
^degrees,  it  has  broken  the  fetters  of  the  slave  and  of  the  captive,  and  prepared 
mankind  for  full  and  perfect  liberty.  The  emancipation  of  the  mind  and 
heart  from  the  slavery  of  error  and  sin,  was  a  primary  object  of  the  Chris¬ 
tian  religion,  expressed  in  those  words  of  Christ:  “You  shall  know  the 
truth,  and  the  truth  shall  make  you  free.”^  This  higher  freedom  once 
secured,  man  was  naturally  led  to  break  other  bonds.  Christianity  thus 
threw  upon  earthly  things  a  light  reflected  from  heaven,  and  pointed  tri¬ 
umphantly  to  the  great  “City  of  God,”  as  more  than  realizing  all  the 
brightest  visions  of  human  freedom  and  happiness  ! 

The  influence  of  Catholicity  on  civil  liberty  may  be  viewed  in  a  twofold 
light :  the  one  theoretical,  the  other  practical.  The  former  is  that  of  her 
doctrines  and  government ;  the  latter,  that  of  her  external  action  on  society. 
We  will  endeavor  to  show  that,  under  both  aspects,  this  influence  has  been 
favorable  to  the  development  of  free  principles,  and  to  the  progress  of  civil 
liberty. 


1  Matt.  xxii. 


2  St.  John  Tiii,  32. 


ON  CIVIL  LIBERTY. 


133 


1.  Though  the  divine  Founder  of  the  Christian  Cliurcli  did  not  intend 
lo  inlerfere  with  civil  governments,  yet  the  tendency  of  his  doctrines  was 
to  equalize  the  social  condition  of  mankind,  —  to  exalt  the  humble,  and 
to  humble  the  proud.  His  was  a  religion  which  solaced  and  raised  up 
the  poor;  and  taught  tliose  in  power  to  bear  their  honors  meekly,  and  to 
remember  that  all  Christians  are  equal  before  God,  with  wliom  “there  is 
no  exception  of  persons.’'  The  Church  founded  by  Christ  has  ever  been 
guided  by  thes*  principles.  She  has  always  proclaimed  the  truth,  that  all 
mankind  were  born  alike  “  children  of  wrath,”*  and  that  by  baptism  they 
all  become  equally  “  children  of  God.”  With  her  “  there  is  neither  gentile 
nor  Jew,  circumcision  nor  uncircumcision,  barbarian  nor  Scythian,  bond 
nor  free  ;  but,  Christ  is  all,  and  in  all.”**  The  prince  and  the  beggar,  — 
the  princess  and  the  poorest  peasant  girl,  —  kneel  side  by  side  in  her  most 
stately  temples,  all  reduced  to  the  same  level  of  humble  suppliants  for  mercy! 
The  pew  system,  which  establishes  distinctions  in  churches,  is  a  modern 
invention  unknown  to  Catholic  times,  and  still  unknown  in  Catholic 
countries.  St.  Peter’s  church,  with  pews,  would  present  a  spectacle,  blend¬ 
ing  strangely  the  sublime  and  the  ridiculous.  It  would  be  something  like 
the  Englishman’s  project,  to  have  the  front  of  that  magnificent  temple 
painted  and  penciled  in  the  modern  style  1  In  this,  and  in  every  other 
respect,  the  Church  has  fully  carried  out  the  intentions  of  her  divine 
Founder  ;  she  has  ever  been  the  mother  of  the  poor,  a^nd  the  comfortress  of 
the  afflicted.  Christ  neglected  the  rich  and  mingled  freely  with  the  poor  f 
she  has  caught  His  spirit,  and,  in  every  age,  has  imitated  His  example;  as 
we  trust  to  show  in  the  sequel. 

The  analogy  of  these  principles  with  those  embodied  in  our  Declaration 
of  Independence,  must  be  manifest  to  every  reflecting  mind ;  while  their 
influence  on  the  social  condition  could  not  be  otherwise  than  favorable  to 
the  development  of  free  principles,  as  well  as  destructive  of  tyranny.  Nor 
was  this  tendency  neutralized  by  the  form  of  Church  government.  It  is 
not  necessary  to  inquire,  whether  this  be  monarchical,  aristocratical,  or 
/lemocratical,  or,  a  blending  of  the  three.  Suffice  it  to  say,  that,  as  its 
objects  are  widely  dili’erent  from  those  of  any  human  government,  so  its 
nature  is  also  widely  diflerent.  To  preserve  His  followers  in  unity  of  faith 
and  worship,  and  to  unite  them  into  one  compact  body,  Christ  instituted  a 
form  of  government,  tiie  best  calculated  to  secure  these  ends  ;  and,  at  the 
same  time,  compatible  with  every  condition  of  human  society.  These  objects 
are  entirely  spiritual  and  supernatural,  and  the  form  of  government,  though 
external,  is  accordingly  marked  by  the  same  qualities.  The  arms  of  the 
Church  are  not  carnal,  but  spiritual.  Her  “  kingdom  is  not  of  this  w^orld,” 
and,  therefore,  cannot  be  incompatible  with  any  worldly  government. 

Though  we  -cannot,  for  the  reasons  indicated,  di-aw  an  exact  parallel 
betw’een  her  form  of  government  and  those  of  civil  society,  yet,  wv!  might 
be  warranted  in  saying,  that  the  former  combines  all  the  excellencies  of  the 
latter,  without  their  defects.  It  is  an  elective  monarchy,  an  arisiocracy  of 

l  Eplitis.  ii,  3. 

7»Q 


2  Colons,  iii.  11, 


134 


INFLUENCE  OF  CATHOLICITY 


merit,  and  a  democracy  without  party  factions.  Every  Christian  man,  no 
matter  how  lowly,  is  eligible  to  the  highest  offices  in  the  Church.  Many  of 
the  Popes  have  been  chosen  from  the  lowest  walks  of  life.  The  late  Pontifl* 
was  an  example  of  this.  His  merit  alone  raised  him  from  an  humble  situ¬ 
ation  in  a  small  village  of  northern  Italy,  Belluno,  to  the  highest  honors  of 
the  hierarchy.  And,  as  an  illustration  of  this  same  principle,  we  may 
remark  here,  by  the  way,  that  of  the  forty -one  Pontiffs,  who  during  the 
last  three  hundred  years  have  occupied  the  chair  of  St.  Peter,  only  five 
have  been  Roman  citizens;  and  that,  during  the  same  period,  very  few 
Popes  have  been  elected  from  princely  families.  The  same  remark  applies 
to  the  body  of  cardinals,  who  in  general  receive  their  honors  solely  as  the 
award  of  merit  and  learning.  Nor  do  the  four  or  five,  out  of  seventy, 
selected  from  noble  families,  form  an  exception  to  this  remark.  Not  to 
speak  of  others,  every  one  has  heard  of  the  eminent  virtues  and  transcendant 
merit  of  the  late  sainted  Cardinal  Odescalchi. 

The  elective  principle,  differently  modified  according  to  circumstances, 
has  also  been  applied  in  every  age  of  the  Church  to  the  second  great  order 
of  the  hierarchy,  the  bishops.  In  Catholic  countries,  where  the  require¬ 
ments  of  the  canon  law  can  be  complied  with,  they  are  usually  elected  by 
the  clergy  or  chapter,  according  to  certain  established  forms.  In  this 
country,  and  in  some  others,  the  election,  or  rather  presentation  of  candidates, 
is  made  by  the  bishops  of  the  metropolitan  province,  in  accordance  with  a 
canon  of  the  great  Nicene  council,  held  in  325.  If  the  approval  and  action 
•  of  the  holy  see  are  necessary,  before  any  election  can  take  effect,  it  is  to 
secure  unity  of  government,  and  to  prevent  the  intrusion  of  unworthy  mem¬ 
bers  into  the  hierarchy.  So  far  was  this  elective  principle  carried  during  the 
lirst  ages  of  the  Church,  that,  in  many  cases,  the  people  had  a  voice  with  the 
clergy  in  the  election  of  their  bishops  ;  more,  however,  it  must  be  confessed, 
as  witnesses  of  the  qualities  of  the  candidate,  than  as  regular  electors.  Thus 
we  read,  that  St.  Ambrose  and  St.  Augustine  were  ciiosen  bishops  by  the 
clergy  and  people  of  Milan  and  Hippo.  Factions  and  other  inconveniences 
attending  this  mode  of  election  caused  its  gradual  abolition,  and  the  substi¬ 
tution  of  other  safer  forms  ;  but  the  spirit  and  practice  of  the  Church  have 
nevertheless  always  inclined  her,  in  the  election  of  bishops,  to  consider 
not  only  the  qualities  of  the  candidate,  but  also  how  far  he  might  prove 
acceptable  to  the  flock  to  be  committed  to  his  charge. 

Another  essential  feature  of  democracy,  is  the  decision  of  all  matters  of 
importance  in  deliberative  assemblies.  The  Church  has  exhibited  this 
feature  as  strikingly  as  any  republic ;  and  she  has  presented  the  oldest  and 
best  models  of  such  assemblies.  From  the  councils  held  by  the  apostles, 
mentionedin  the  Acts,  down  to  that  of  Trent,  in  the  sixteenth  century,  she 
has  constantly  applied  this  principle,  in  regard  both  to  the  decision  of  con¬ 
troversies  on  doctrinal  points,  and  to  statutes  of  discipline.  Not  only  does 
it  pervade  her  whole  history,  but  it  ramifies  throughout  her  entire  body, 
spread  over  the  surface  of  the  earth.  It  is  exhibited  in  diocesan  synods^ 
held  annually  in  each  diocese,  for  the  regulation  of  local  discipline  ;  in  pro- 

a 


ON  CIVIL  LIBERTY. 


1S5 

rincial  councils  held  every  three  years,  in  accordance  with  the  decree  of 
the  Tridentine  council ;  in  national  councils  held  at  stated  intervals,  for  the 
regulation  of  national  discipline ;  and  in  general  councils,  which  meet  only 
during  the  greatest  emergencies  of  the  Church.  That  the  disciplinary 
statutes  of  all  these  various  deliberative  assemblies  may  be  in  harmony 
with  the  general  laws  of  the  Church,  they  cannot  take  effect  without  the 
approval  of  the  holy  see ;  which  in  this,  as  in  every  other  respect,  is  thus 
an  effective  center  of  unity,  and  the  great  conservative  principle  of  the 
Church. 

It  has  been  said,  that  the  authority  of  the  Pope  is  absolute  and  despotic. 
No  charge  could  be  more  unfounded.  It  is  true,  that  ho  derives  his 
authority  immediately  from  Christ,  who  gave  to  him,  in  the  person  of 
Peter,  full  power  to  feed  the  sheep  as  well  as  the  lambs  of  His  entire  flock 
(John  xxi).  It  is  true,  also,  that  this  power  is  ample  enough  to  meet 
every  emergency  that  may  arise.  But  it  is  equally  true,  that  it  is  neces¬ 
sarily  limited  by  its  own  nature,  and  by  the  objects  it  was  instiLuted  to 
promote.  It  can  do  every  thing,  in  its  own  appropriate  sphere,  and  for  the 
edification  of  the  body  of  Christ ; — out  of  its  own  province,  and  for  destruc¬ 
tion,  it  is  powerless.  The  exercise  of  the  pontifical  power  is  variously 
i\3strained  by  the  decrees  of  general  councils,  the  enactments  of  the  canon 
law,  and  the  force  of  precedent.  Whatever  opinion  may  be  entertained 
about  the  theory,  the  practice  of  papal  authority  has  ever  been  regulated 
by  these  fixed  principles.  The  wisdom  and  consistency  of  the  court  of 
Rome,  and  its  rigid  adherence  to  precedent,  not  only  in  the  substance, 
but  also  as  to  the  very  form  of  its  decisions,  are  well  known  to  the  world. 
Even  Protestants  with  the  most  violent  prejudices  have  been  forcibly 
struck  by  this  fact,  and  sadly  puzzled  to  account  for  it  to  tlieir  own  satis¬ 
faction.  The  Pope  usually  decides  nothing  without  consulting  his  counselors, 
the  college  of  cardinals,  and  seldom  determines  any  thing  against  their 
advice.  Thougli  the  cases  are  not  in  every  respect  parallel,  yet  in  viewing 
the  manner  of  procedure  adopted  by  the  Roman  Court,  we  are  forcibly 
reminded  of  our  President  and  Senate.  The  congregations,  or  committees 
of  cardinals  for  various  purposes,  correspond  to  the  standing  committees 
of  the  Senate;  and  in  tlie  former  matters  are  discussed  with  as  much 
patience  and  ability,  to  say  the  least,  as  in  the  latter. 

II.  But,  as  theories,  however  specious,  might  be  thought  to  mislead 
us,  we  come  at  once  to  what  must  be  deemed  decisive  in  the  matter, —  the 
practical  influence  of  Catholicity  upon  civil  liberty.  And,  a  mere  glance 
at  the  different  epochs  of  Church  History,  in  connection  with  the  corres¬ 
ponding  phases  of  society,  will  suffice  to  show  us,  what  that  influence  has 
been,  how  it  has  promoted  civilization,  and,  at  least  indirectly,  developed 
the  democratic  ^^’Inciple. 

1.  The  Church  was  so  trammeled  and  oppressed  by  the  Roman  govern¬ 
ment,  during  the  first  three  centuries  of  her  existence,  that  her  influence 
on  society  during  that  period  could  neither  be  fully  exerted,  nor  exten¬ 
sively  felt.  Still,  though  crushed  and  bleeding,  she  spoke  with  a  voice- 


4a 


i 


136  INFLUENCE  OF  CATHOLICITY 

which  raised  up  and  comforted  the  poor  and  the  persecuted,  a«d  eithei 
softened  the  heart  or  struck  terror  into  the  bosom  of  the  persecutor.  In  the 
second  century,  Tertullian  could  already  appeal  to  the  immense  number  of 
Christians  in  every  part  of  the  empire,  as  an  argument  to  prove  the  utter 
impotency  of  tyranny,  and  as  a  powerful  inducement  to  stay  the  arm  of 
persecution.  The  vast  body  of  early  Christians  were  from  the  lowest  walks 
of  life;  these  were  exalted  by  the  Christian  profession  ;  and  tlicie  is  no 
doubt  that  the  social  condition  of  this  order  in  the  fourth  century,  when 
Christianity  finally  gained  the  ascendency,  was  vastly  more  elevated  than 
it  had  been  under  the  old  Roman  empire.  Immense  numbers  of  slaves 
had  been  emancipated,  and  the  higher  orders  of  society  had  already  learned 
to  look  on  the  hitherto  despised  lower  classes  as  their  equals  in  Christ 
Jesus.  In  the  fourth  century,  we  find  the  Church  employing  her  newly 
acquired  influence  on  civil  society,  for  the  mitigation  of  despotism,  and  the 
vindication  of  the  oppressed.  At  Milan,  we  behold  an  Ambrose  refusing 
communion  to  the  great  Theodosius,  who,  in  an  evil  hour,  had  ordered  a 
massacre  of  his  people  in  the  streets  of  Thessalonica,  without  distinction  of 
guilty  and  innocent.  This  stain  of  blood  was  washed  out  only  by  a  public 
penance,  such  as  the  lowest  member  of  the  Church  would  have  been  con¬ 
strained  to  undergo  for  a  similar  offence.  In  the  east,  we  see  a  Chry¬ 
sostom  rebuking,  with  all  his  burning  eloquence,  the  vices  of  an  empress  ; 
and,  though  his  life  was  the  forfeit  of  his  courage,  his  blood  still  cried 
aloud  against  vice  in  high  places,  and  the  people  raised  a  monument  to  his 
memoi  y  !  We  say  nothing  of  an  Athanasius,  of  a  Hilary,  and  of  various 
Roman  Pontiff's,  who,  during  the  fierce  days  of  Arianism,  had  the  courage 
to  suft'er  for  the  faith,  and  to  tell  the  truth  to  those  emperors,  who,  before 
their  conversion  to  Christianity,  had  been  worshiped  as  gods,  but  were 
now  to  be  taught,  that  they  were  but  weak,  erring  men. 

2.  When  the  Roman  empire  fell,  and  the  successive  hordes  of  the 
heathen  or  Arian  Northmen  overran  Europe,  for  more  than  two  centuries 
spreading  desolation  in  their  course,  the  Church  alone  saved  the  world 
from  barbarism.  Like  the  ark  of  old,  she  rode  triumphant  amid  this 
second  deluge  of  waters,  bearing  in  her  bosom  the  sacred  seeds  of  civili¬ 
sation  ;  which,  when  those  dark  waters  should  subside,  she  was  again  to 
.scatter  broadcast  on  the  surface  of  the  earth.  Not  only  this,  but  she  was 
to  water  them  with  her  tears  and  her  blood,  was  to  cherish  their  growth, 
and  to  gather  the  abundant  fruit  they  would  yield,  “  for  the  healing  of  the 
nations.”  From  the  fifth  to  the  tenth  century,  she  successfully  labored 
for  the  conversion  of  the  Northmen,  and  during  this  period  she  had  the 
consolation  of  seeing  them  enter,  nation  by  nation,  within  her  pale.  Mean¬ 
time  she  sought  by  various  means  to  soften  their  fierceness,  to  improve 
their  legislation,  and  to  diminish  the  evils  of  the  feudal  system,  which  they 
had  brought  into  Europe.  The  bloody  strifes  which  this  system  occa¬ 
sioned,  were  mitigated  by  the  famous  “  Truce  of  God  which  enacted, 
that  out  of  reverence  to  the  Lord’s  passion  and  resurrection,  all  hostilities 
should  be  suspended  fi-om  the  evening  of  Wednesday  to  the  morning  of 


if 


ON  CIVIL  LIBERTY. 


137 


the  following  Monday.’  She  gradually  abolished  the  absurd  and  super¬ 
stitious  ordeals  by  fire  and  water,  and  substituted  for  them  more  rational 
forms  of  trial.  She  raised  her  voice  ao-ainst  the  cruel  sacrifice  of  life  in 

O 

the  joust  and  tournament,  by  enacting  a  severe  canon  against  such 
pageants.^ 

To  shield  the  oppi^ssed,  and  to  protect  the  persecuted  in  those  days  of 
bloody  feuds,  she  established  the  privilege  of  asylum,  and  declared,  that 
whoever  souo-ht  refuofe  near  the  altar  of  God  should  be  free  from  the  attacks 
of  every  enemy.  In  one  word,  she  did  all  that  was  possible  under  the  cir¬ 
cumstances,  to  ameliorate  the  social  condition  of  mankind  ;  and  if  she  did 
not  fully  succeed  according  to  her  wishes,  it  was  not  “her  fault,”  but 
“  that  of  the  times.”  Thouo-h,  amidst  the  din  of  arms  and  the  confusion 

.  V.  .  ° 

of  society,  her  voice  was  not  always  heard,  yet  when  heard  it  was  gene¬ 
rally  respected.  In  fact,  hers  was  the  only  authority  that  was  generally 
reverenced  during  the  period  in  question  ;  and  if  she  had  not  interposed 
it,  no  human  power  could  have  saved  Europe  from  complete  barbarism. 
By  averting  this  overwhelming  evil,  she  made  it  possible  for  Europe  to 
be  free  ;  and  this  argument  alone  would  prove  that  all  the  subsequent 
advancement  of  Europe  in  civilization  and  in  liberal  government,  is  to  be 
ascribed  to  her  influence,  as  to  its  source. 

As  an  able  American  Protestant  writer  candidly  acknowledges  : 

“  Tliough  seemingly  enslaved,  the  Church  was  in  reality  the  life  of 
Europe.  She  was  the  refuge  of  the  distressed,  the  friend  of  the  slave,  'the 
helper  of  the  injured,  the  only  hope  of  learning.  To  her,  chivahy  owed 
its  noble  aspirations  ;  to  her,  art  and  agriculture  |ooked  for  every  improve¬ 
ment.  The  ruler  from  her  learned  some  rude  justice ;  the  ruled  learned 
faith  and  obedience.  Let  us  not  cling  to  the  superstition,  which  teaches 
that  the  Church  has  always  upheld  the  cause  of  tyrants.  Through  the 
middle  ages  she  was  the  only  friend  and  advocate  of  the  people,  and  of  the 
rio-hts  of  man.  To  her  influence  was  it  owing;  that,  through  all  that 
strange  era,  the  slaves  of  Europe  were  better  protected  by  law  than  are 
now  the  free  blacks  of  the  United  States  by  the  national  statutes.”  ^ 

Another  Protestant  writer  gives  the  following  opinion  of  the  influence 
which  the  Catholic  Church  exercised  on  civilization,  especially  during  the 
middle  ages : 

“  A  desire  of  corporate  security,  and  a  vague  notion  of  an  imperial 
majesty,  an  absolute  and  sacred  power  vested  in  an  individual,  were  the 
bequests  of  ancient  times  to  the  middle  ages.  Christianity,  or  rather 
reverence  for  the  Church,  was  the  most  powerfully  formative  opinion  of 
modern  civilization,  and  here  it  is  especially^  necessary  to  distinguish 
between  the  institution  and  the  ideas  on  which  it  was  founded.  The 
antiquities  of  clerical  organization  need  not  now  be  investigated  ;  it  is 
sufficient  to  say,  that  the  Christian  Church,  before  it  was  established  by 
Constantine,  had  a  fixed  system  of  government  with  a  due  subordination 
of  parts,  and  that,  when  Christianity  became  the  established  religion  of  the 

1  For  a  beautiful  explanation  and  illustration  of  this  regulation,  see  Dr .  Wiseman’s  Lectures  on 
the  Holy  Week,  delivered  at  llmiie.  . 

2  See  Can.  xx.  of  the  third  Laterasi  council,  held  A.  D.  1179,  under  Alexander  111. 

3  North  American  lleview.  for  .Jul\  ,  1845. 

Q2  •  , 

I 


138 


INFLUENCE  OF  CATHOLICITY 


empire,  the  clergy  at  the  same  moment  became  an  organized  and  recognized 
political  body.  In  the  decay  of  municipal  institutions,  tlie  bishops  and 
priests  succeeded  to  the  influence  of  the  civic  magistrates,  not  by  usur¬ 
pation,  but  by  the  sheer  pi-essure  of  circumstances,  possessing  the  additional 
advantages  of  irresponsibility — for  their  offices  were  deemed  sacred  and 
inalienable.  From  the  fifth  to  tlie  nintli  century,  the  barbarian  elements 
of  force  and  violent  movement  wei-e  predominant,  because  horde  followed 
liorde,  as  wave  follows  wave,  and  one  race  of  the  conquerors  liad  scarcely 
established  itself  in  a  country,  when  it  was  forced  to  make  room  for  another. 
But  amid  all  these  changes  and  convulsions,  the  Church  remained  firm 
and  unshaken ;  like  a  gallant  vessel  in  the  stormy  ocean,  it  rode  proudly 
over  the  billows,  and,  thougli  it  sometimes  bowed  before  a  sudden  burst 
of  the  tempest,  it  instantly  rose  again  in  all  its  pride  and  all  its  security. 

“  The  Church  was  the  first  permanent  establishment  of  modern  Europe  ; 
for  four  centuries  it  alone  maintained  the  strim-o-le  ao-ainst  barbai^sm  :  it 

o  o  o 

preserved  the  memory  of  municipal  freedom  and  Roman  majesty  in 
temporal  government,  and  ac-tually  established  the  system  in  spiritual 
affairs  ;  and,  by  working  on  ignorance,  superstition,  and  barbarity,  by 
means  too  closely  adapted  to  the  materials  of  the  operation,  it  obtained  a 
mastery  over  the  energies  of  the  northern  tribes,  and  not  unfrequeirtly  the 
guidance  and  direction  of  their  movements.  Such  a  power  was  legiti¬ 
mated  not  merely  by  continuance  but  by  its  usefulnesss,  and  from  the 
Church,  temporal  authority  was  almost  at  the  outset  forced  to  borrow  its 
sanctions  and  derive  its  legitimacy. 

“It  is  needless  to  describe  feudality,  or  point  out  its  inherent  tyranny 
and  injustice :  but  that  it  was  necessary  in  its  age  is  indisputably  proved 
by  its  universal  adoption  in  every  European  country  nearly  at  the  same 
time;  the  first  consequence  of  the  system  was  a  transfer  of  the  influence  of 
the  towns  to  the  country,  and  the  almost  total  extinction  of  municipal  institu¬ 
tions,  the  last  relic  of  ancient  civilization.  It  was  apparently  a  retrogra- 
dation  to  anarchy  ;  it  was  subversive  of  all  social  security  and  happiness  ; 
but  it  fostered  the  growth  of  individual  prowess.  The  chivalrous  virtues, 
such  as  they  were,  sprung  from  feudalism ;  the  chivalrous  literature,  by 
which  these  virtues  were  exaggerated  and  the  accompanying  vices  con¬ 
cealed,  was  the  child  of  the  same  parent,  and  for  many  centuries  has 
thrown  a  bright  veil  over  the  horrors  of  its  origin.  Feudalism  was  the 
worst  foe  to  social  order,  because  it  was  equally  opposed  to  the  sovereignty 
of  the  monarch  and  the  liberty  of  the  people.  Could  it  have  held  its 
position,  luirope  must  have  sunk  into  barbarism  ;  but  it  had  to  oppose  a 
powerful  principle, —  the  influence  of  the  Church.  In  the  eleventh  century 
ilie  papacy  fought  the  battle  of  freedom  and  civilization. 

“It  was  under  the  pressure  of  the  feudal  system  that  the  organization  of 
the  papacy  was  completed  and  defined  ;  there  is  no  part  of  the  Romish 
creed,  not  one  of  the  Romish  institutions,  that  was  not  of  the  utmost 
importance  in  the  great  struggle  it  had  to  maintain  :  and  of  the  doctrines 
and  practices  on  which  ‘the  nineteenth  century  passes  just  sentence  of 
condemnation  (!)  there  isscarcely  one  that  could  have  been  spared  seven 
hundred  years  ago,  without  imminent  peril  to  the  great  cause  of  human 
civilization  and  social  happiness.  By  its  numerous  gradations  of  rank, 
the  Church  of  the  middle  ages  linked  itself  to  every  class  of  society  ;  its 
bishops  were  the  companions  of  princes  ;  its  priests  claimed  reverence  in 
the  baronial  hall ;  its  preaching  friars  and  monks  brought  consolation  to 
the  cottage  of  the  suflering  peasant.  When  the  distinction  of  caste  was 
rightly  established  in  every  other  form  of  social  life,  the  Church  scarcely 
knew  any  aristocracy  but  that  of  talent ;  once  received  into  holy  orders- 


ON. Cl  VIL  LIBERTY. 


139 


the  serf  lost  all  traces  of  his  bondage  ;  he  was  not  merely  raised  to  an 
equality  with  his  former  lord,  but  lie  might  aspire  to  dignities  that  cast 
those  of  temporal  princes  into  the  shade. 

“  Before  we  pass  sentence  on  an  institution,  we  should  examine  the 
opinion  on  which  it  is  founded  ;  and  before  we  judge  of  the  opinion,  we 
should  know  the  circumstances  by  which  it  was  engendered.  The  public 
opinion  of  Europe  in  the  eleventh  century  was  represented  by  a  ti-uly  great 
man,  Hildebrand,  or,  as  he  was  called  after  his  accession  to  the  chair  of 
St.  Peter,  Gregory  VII.  It  has  been  tlie  fashion  to  describe  this  prelate 
as  a  species  of  moral  monster,  the  enemy  of  all  improvement.  There  is  no 
doubt  that  a  Pope  possessing  anything  like  his  influence,  who  would  propose 
and  strive  to  enforce,  the  same  measures  in  the  nineteenth  century  that 
Gregory  did  in  the  eleventh,  might  justly  be  regarded  as  one  of  ,the  worst 
despots  that  ever  existed,  and  furthermore  as  one  of  the  most  blundering 
tyrants  that  ever  disgraced  humanity  ;  there  is  just  as  little,  indeed  rather 
less  doubt,  that  in  his  own  age  every  one  of  these  measures  counteracted 
some  evil  principle,  and  helped  to  work  out  an  antagonizing  principle  of 
civilization.  Gregory  VII.  was  a  reformer  as  well  as  Luther, '  he  used 
despotic  means,  but  there  were  no  otiiers  at  his  disposal ;  lie  was  nearly 
in  the  ecclesiastical  world  what  Charlamao’ne  and  Peter  the  Great  have 

O 

been  in  the  political ;  he  wished  to  reform  the  Church  and  by  means  of  the 
Church  to  reform  civil  society,  to  introduce  into  both  more  morality, 
justice,  and  order;  he  did  not  live  to  see  the  triumph  of  his  principles,  but 
he  prepared  the  way  for  the  rule  of  his  successors.  The  theory  of 
Hildebrand’s  system  was  beautiful ;  it  apparently  based  supreme  power 
upon  intelligence,  and  concentrated  both  in  the  Church.”  ^ 

3.  The  influence  of  the  Church  had  already  done  much  towards  miti¬ 
gating,  and  gradually  destroying  that  odious  feature,  common  to  every 
form  of  ancient  pagan  society,  —  domestic  slavery  ;  by  which  the  vast  body 
of  mankind  had  been  held  in  bondage  to  a  few  who  alone  could  claim  the 
right  of  citizenship.^  She  now  set  about  abolishing  that  form  of  slavery 
which  had  been  introduced  by  the  Northmen,  and  which  was  intimately 
blended  Avith  tlie  feudal  system.  Under  this  polity,  the*vast  body  of  the 
people  were  called  serfs,  and  could  be  bought  and  sold  with  the  soil  to 
which  they  were  attached.  With  this  abject  class,  the  Church  sympa¬ 
thized  most  deeply.  Like  her  divine  Founder,  she  has  ever  viewed  the 
poor  as  her  favored  children.  But,  in  this  as  in  every  thing  else,  she 
proceeded  slowly  and  cautiously,  knowing  that  every  great  beneficial 
change,  designed  to  affect  whole  masses  of  population,  must  be  the  woi  k  of 
time.  W ithout  violence  —  without  any  sudden  shock  of  the  social  system  — • 
she  slowly,  but  surely  effected  her  object,  and  serfism  was  gradually 
abolished,  wherever  her  voice  could  be  lieard.  Under  the  influence  of 
her  humanizing  principles  and  mild  legislation,  the  condition  of  the  serfs 
was  gradually  improved  ;  until,  the  way  having  been  thus  wisely  prepared, 
the  system  disappeared  altogether  from  European  society.  To  show  that 
the  social  elevation  and  subsequent  emancipation  oi  the  serfs  were  mainly 

1  Kvery  reader  of  liistory  will  know  how  to  draw  the  line  of  distinction  between  Luther  and 
Grej'ory  V!l. ;  h\xx\ii-v  reformed  from  high  to  low,  Gregory,  from  low  to  high. 

2  Tlie  Foreign  Quarterly  Heview 

3  .See.  for  a  full  de\elo|.ment  of  this  interesting  topic,  Baluiee  ‘-Catholicity  and  Protestantism 
Compared,”  Ch.  xv,  and  following. 


140 


INFLUENCE  OF  CATHOLICITY 

*1 


due  to  the  Catholio  Church,  a  very  striking  fact  may  be  alleged.  The 
only  country  in  Europe  where  the  serf  system  still  exists  in  all  its  debase¬ 
ment,  is  Russia ;  which,  long  torn  by  schism  from  the  Catholic  Church, 
has  always  resisted  her  influence  in  this  respect,  with  as  much  blind 
obstinancy  as  she  has  done  in  the  matter  of  the  Gregorian  calendar.' 

4.  After  having  thus  rescued  Europe  from  barbarism  and  domestic 
servitude,  the  Church  was  destined  to  save  her  from  a  still  more  appalling 
evil, —  the  subversion  of  her  independence  by  a  foreign  religioso-political 
despotism.  The  followers  of  Mohammed,  after  having  overrun  Asia  and 
Africa,  entered  and  subdued  Spain. in  the  year  711.  In  732,  their  vic¬ 
torious  arinies  had  penetrated  to  the  very  heart  of  France  ;  and,  though  in 
the  famous  battle  of  Tours,  fought  in  this  year,  Charles  Martel,  with  his 
French  troops,  utterly  discomfited  them,  yet  their  spirit  of  conquest  was 
not  broken  by  the  overwhelming  defeat.  Recovering  from  its  effects,  they 
became  masters  of  the  Mediterranean  sea  in  the  tenth  century  ;  and  they 
had  already  established  a  piratical  colony  in  the  south  of  France,  and  had 
twice  ravaged  Rome  itself,  before  the  year  906.^  They  subdued  Sicily, 
and  other  important  islands  in  the  Mediterranean  ;  and  Spain  being  already 
in  their  possession,  they  threatened  Constantinople  in  the  east,  while  the 
whole  southern  frontier  of  Europe  was  open  to  their  incursions.  Europe, 
thus  menaced  with  a  foreign  yoke,  which  aliieady  weighed  heavily  on  the 
necks  of  half  the  world,  was  in  no  condition  to  repel  invasion.  Broken 
into  fragments  by  the  feudal  system,  and  torn  by  petty  wars,  she  could 
not  expect  to  cope  with  the  immense  united  host  embattled  against  her 
under  the  crescent. 

In  this  emergency,  the  Church  and  tlie  Popes  came  to  the  rescue  ;  and 
whoever  will  read  history  aright,  must  see  that  it  is  mainly  to  their  influence 
that  Europe  is  indebted  for  her  independence,  and  with  it,  for  all  her 
social  advantaged  over  other  countries.  That  master  stroke  of  policy, 
which,  by  means  of  the  Crusades,  carried  tlie  war  into  the  enemy’s  country, 
and  for  two  centuries  made  Palestine  the  battle  ground  of  the  world,  kept 
off  the  threatened  invasion,  and  preserved  Constantinople,  the  great  bul¬ 
wark  of  Europe  in  the  East,  for  centuries  ;  and,  while  it  gave  the  Moham¬ 
medans  enough  to  do  at  home,  it  allowed  Europe  time  to  breathe,  and  to 
prepare  for  the  coming  struggle.  And  yet,  with  all  this  preparation  for 
the  final  contest,  Europe  still  proved  almost  unequal  to  it,  after  the  Turks 
had  taken  Constantinople,  in  1453.  For  more  than  two  centuries  after 
this  event,  not  only  lier  peace,  but  her  very  independence,  was  threatened 
by  the  Turks.  The  Popes  were  always  at  the  head  of  the  league  for 
repelling  Turkish  invasion  ;  and  the  glorious  result  of  the  famous  sea-fight 
at  Lepanto  in  1571,  which  destroyed  the  Turkish  fleet,  and  drove  the 

1  For  a  full  and  satisfactory  account  of  the  present  moral,  social  and  religious  condition  of  Russia 
see  De  Maistre,  “  Du  Pape,”  vol.  ii,  where  he  enters  into  this  subject  at  length.  Eveu  Voltaire,  that 
implaca'ble  enemy  of  the  Popes,  awards  them  much  praise  for  their  agency  in  miiigating  and  abolish¬ 
ing  the  serf  system  ;  though  here,  as  elsewhere,  his  quotations  are  not  always  reliable  Essai  sur 
Jes  lloeurs,  Ch.  Ixxxiii. 

2  See  Muratori,  “Annali  di  Italia,”  ad  an.  906,  etc.  Also  Ilallam’s  Middle  Ages,  Ch.i,  p.  25. 


ON  CIVIL  LIBERTY. 


141 


Ottoman  flag  from  the  Mediterranean,  is  mainly  to  be  ascribed  to  the 
exertions  of  the  sainted  Pope  Pius  V.  As  late  as  1683,  th'e  Turkish  army 
was  under  the  walls  of  Vienna,  and  that  city  was  saved  only  by  the  timely 
appearance  of  Sobieski  and  his  thirty  thousand  brave  Poles,  invited  to  the 
rescue  by  Pope  Innocent  XI. 

5.  But  the  Crilsades  did  more  than  to  secure  the  independence  of 
Europe.  To  them,  more  perhaps  than  to  any  other  cause,  are  we  to  attri¬ 
bute  the  social  improvement  of  mankind,  and  the  rise  of  free  institutions. 
They  united  Europe  in  one  great  cause,  they  impaired  the  feudal  system 
and  consolidated  government,  they  rid  Europe  of  many  petty  despots  who 
were  firebrands  in  the  heart  of  society ;  they  elicited  enterprise,  stimu¬ 
lated  commerce,  fostered  industry,  and  cherished  mechanical  skill,  by 
opening  a  market  in  the  east  to  the  products  of  European  industry.  Many 
of  our  greatest  inventions,  and  among  them,  that  of  gunpowder  and  the 
mariner’s  compass,  date  back  to  the  period  of  the  Crusades.  But  what  is 
still  more  to  our  present  purpose,  they  raised  the  lower  classes,  and  gave 
importance  to  the  cities.  The  Free  Cities  of  the  middle  ages, —  those  first 
nurseries  of  free  principles, — owed  their  origin  and  their  privileges  mainly 
to  the  startling  events  connected  with  those '  expeditions.  At  least,  this  v 
is  true  in  regard  to  those  of  Italy,  which  during  these  excursions  into 
Palestine,  became  the  commercial  carriers  of  Europe. 

'  The  limits  of  this  essay  will  allow  but  a  rapid  view  of  the  Free  Cities  of 
the  middle  ages  ;  and  we  wdll  speak  chiefly  of  those  of  Spain,  Germany, 
and  Italy.  Of  those  of  France,  M.  Guizot,  a  Protestant,  treats  at  length, 
in  his  late  singular  lectures  “on  Civilization  in  Modern  Europe.”  ^ 

If  we  except  those  of  Italy,  the  Cities  of  Spain,  were  the  first  in  Europe 
which  received ’charters  of  privileges.  These  they  obtained  from  various 
Spanish  monarchs,  for  military  services  reifdered,  or  to  be  rendered  the 
state,  in  the  long  contest  with  the  Moors  for  national  independence.  As 
early  as  the  year  1020,  Alfonzo  V.  granted  a  charter  of  rights  to  the  city  of 
Leon.  Saiicho  the  Great  and  Alfonso  VI.,  in  the  same  century,  extended 
similar’ privileges  to  many  other  cities.  These  charters,  oxfueros,  allowed 
them  to  elect  their  own  city  council,  judges  and  other  municipal  officers, 
and  to  send  deputies  to  the  Cortes  of  the  kingdom.  We  read  of  many 
cities  sending  their  deputies  to  the  Cortes  in  the  year  1169.  From  the 
reign  of  Alfonso  IX.  in  1188,  we  have  constant  mention  “of  a  great 
number  of  deputies  from  each  city.”^  In  the  Cortes  of  Burgos,  in  1315, 
there  were  present  one  hundred  and  ninety-two  delegates  from  ninety 
diflerent  cities  ;  and  in  that  of  Madrid,  in  1391,  one  hundred  and  twenty- 
six  deputies  attended  from  fifty  cities.^ 

The  Spanish  monarchs  had  no  right  to  levy  taxes,  without  the  consent  of 
the  people  duly  represented  in  the  Cortes.^  In  granting  a  supply  to 

1  M.  Guizot  bflonjjs  to  that  iiiodeni  school  of  philosophers,  called  Eclectics.  In  discussing'  his¬ 
tory,  he  takes  both  sides  of  a  most  every  question,  and  in  many  instances  it  would  require  a  wizard 
or  a  diplomatist  like  hiiii>eif.  to  define  his  real  position. 

2  In  the  old  Spanish  of  that  day,  “  mududunibre  de  embiados  de  cada  cibdad.'' 

3  For  the  original  authorities,  see  llallam's  Middle  Ages,  chap,  iv,  p.  200,  et  seq.  -1  Ibid.  p.  208-9 


112 


INFLUENCE  OF  CATHOLICITY 


Henry  HI.  in  1393,  the  Cortes  required,  “  that  he  should  swear  before  one 
of  the  archbishops,  not  to  take  or  demand  any  money,  seiwice  or  loan,  or 
any  thing  else  of  the  cities  or  towns,  nor  of  individuals  belonging  to  them, 
on  any  pretence  of  necessity,  until  the  three  estates  of  the  ‘kingdom  should 
be  duly  summoned  and  assembled  in  Cortes,  according  to  ancient  usage. 
And  if  any  such  letters  requiring  money  have  been  written,  that  they  shah 
he  obeyed,  hut  not  complied  with}  Mr.  Hallam  admits,  that  “  the  civil 
rights  of  rich  and  poor  in  (Spanish)  courts  of  justice  were  as  equal  as  in 
England.”  ^ 

The  Church  exercised  a  great  and  even  direct  influence  in  bringing 
about  this  development  of  the  democratic  principle  in  Spain.  The  eccle¬ 
siastical  councils,  and  especially  those  of  Toledo,  constituted  the  basis  of 
all  Spanish  jurisprudence  ;  and  the  old  Spanish  civil  laws  were  published 
in  the  ecclesiastical  collections.*  The  councils  of  Spain,  as  of  many  others 
countries  of  Europe,  during  the  middle  ages,  were  often  mixed  assemblages 
of  bishops,  nobles,  and  deputies  from  cities  ;  and  they  often  decided  on  tem¬ 
poral  as  well  as  on  spiritual  matters.  This  fact  is  a  key  to  many  of  the 
difficulties  connected  with  Church  History  during  that  period.  The  fourth 
council  of  Toledo  enacts,  that  “on  the  death  of  a  king,  the  princes  of  the 
kingdom,  together  with  the  clergy,  shall  elect  his  successor  by  common 
consent. 

From  all  these  facts,  we  gather  :  first,  that  Spain,  during  the  middle 
ages,  was  in  possession  of  these  great  democratic  principles,  —  exemption 
from  taxation  without  the  consent  of  the  people,  free  and  full  represen Ui- 
tionof  popular  interests  in  the  national  Cortes,  and  an  elective  monarciiy ; 
and  secondly,  that  the  Church  was  mainly  instrumental  in  securing  to  her 
these  precious  advantages.  Her  liberties  began  to  decline’in  the  sixieeiith 
century,  under  Charles  V.  ahd  Philip  II.  ;  and  one  great  cause  of  the 
declension,  was  the  supposed  necessity  of  strong  measures  of  precautio.i 
against  the  civil  commotions  occasioned  by  the  reformation  in  other 
countries  of  Europe.  By  the  way,  it  is  rather  a  singular  fact,  that  civil 
liberty  should  have  declined  in  every  country  of  Europe  in  the  sixteenth 
century.  Even  Guizot  admits  this.* 

In  Germany,  the  cities  of  Worms  and  Cologne  acquired  political 
importance  under  Henry  IV.,  A.  D.  1076.  His  successor,  Henry  V., 
granted  enfranchisement  to  the  artisans  in  various  other  cities  of  tlie 
Germanic  empire.  The  citizens  were  classed  according  to  their  respective 
employments.®  Frederick  I.  granted  a  charter  to  the  city  of  Spire  in 
1188,  and  various  other  German  cities  began  to  elect  their  own  municipal 
officers,  and  to  have  a  voice  in  the  diet  of  the  empire,  after  this  date.  In 

1  ‘’Obedecidas,  y  non  cumplidas.”  In  refusinj',  the  Cortes  still  maintained  that  lofty  style  of 
deference  for  their  sovereigns,  which  has  ever  marked  the  Spanish  character. 

2  Ibid  p.  201.  3  Ibid.  206.  See  also  Guizot’s  Lectures,  etc. 

4  “  Defuncto  in  pace  principe  primates  totius  regni  una  cum  sarcerdotibus  successorein  regni 
communi  consilio  coustituant.”  See  Marina,  Teorisi  do  las  Cortes,  t.  ii,  p.  2 ;  and  Id.  Ensayo  I’olitico, 
etc.,  chap  Ixvi;  and  Hallam  ibid.  p.  206. 

5  See  Guizots  Lectures,  p.300,  et  seq. 

6  See  Schmidt.  Qoschichte,  ete.,  tom.  iii,  p.  239  et  seq.  quoted  by  Hallam,  chap,  iv,  p.  238-9. 


ON  CIVIL  L  IB  ERT  Y  . 


148 


the  thirteenth  century,  they  became  more  opulent  and  still  more  inde¬ 
pendent.  The  three  orders  of  electors,  princes,  and  dep\ities  from  cities, 
took  their  respective  places  in  the  diet  of  Frankfort  in  1344.  The 
provincial  states  of  the  Germanic  empire  had  also  their  own  privileges, 
and  they  managed  their  own  local  affairs.  The  great  fundamental  principle 
of  mediaeval  jurisprudence  in  Germany,  was  that  “  no  taxes  were  to  he 
levied  on  the  people  without  their  own  consent 

In  Italy,  as  we  have  already  intimated,  the  Free  Cities  obtained  impor¬ 
tance  during  the  Crusades,  in  the  eleventh  and  twelfth  centuries.  The 
Popes  were  their  principal  protectors ;  while  the  emperors  of  Germany 
viewed  their  growing  liberties  with  an  evil  eye.  In  a  diet  held  at 
Roncao-lia  in  1158,  Frederick  Barbarossa  endeavored  to  wrest  from  them 
their  privileges,  and  to  subject  them  to  the  German  yoke.  The  cities 
rebelled,  but  they  were  soon  reduced  to  subjection  by  the  armies  of 
Frederick,  who,  to  strike  terror  into  the  Italian  mind,  caused  the  city 
of  Milan  to  be  razed  to  the  ground,  in  1 162.  But  he  was  disappointed  in 
his  expectations.  The  principal  cities  of  Lombardy  united  in  the  famous 
Lombard  League,  in  1167;  and  their  inhabitants  swore  that  they  would 
either  maintain  their  liberties,  or  be  buried  beneath  the  ruins  of  their 
houses.  Pope  Alexander  III.  was  at  the  head  of  this  League  ;  and  when  , 
the  decisive  battle  fought  near  Legnano,  in  1 1 76,*  had  been  won  by  the 
Italians,  the’ Pope  was  the  principal  negotiator  on  the  part  of  Italy  in  the 
treaty  of  Venice  in  1177,  which  secured  to  them  their  liberties.  The 
grateful  people  built  the  city  of  Alexandria,  in  honor  of  their  illustrious 
patron.  ^ 

In  the  Free  Cities  of  Italy, the  democratic  principle  was  developed  more 
fully  than  in  those  of  any  other  part  of  Europe.  They  became,  in  fact, 
independent  and  regularly  organized  republics.  Was  it  because  they 
were  more  immediately  under  the  influence  of  the  Church,  and  of  the 
Popes  ?  Certain  it  is,  that  the  Popes  contributed  much  to  their  origin, 
and  greatly  fostered  their  growth.  Under  their  auspices,  Venice,  Genoa, 
Florence,  Pisa,  Sienna,  Brescia,  Bergamo,  and  Milan  became  a  bright 
galaxy  of  free  governments.  And  though  their  light  was  subsequently 
obscured  by  the  clouds  of  faction,  yet  most  of  them  continued  to  shine 
throughout  the  middle  ages  ;  and  two  of  them,  Genoa  and  Venice,  lingered 
above  the  horizon,  though  with  diminished  lustre,  almost  until  our  own  day. 

6.  The  fierce  and  bloody  factions  of  the  Guelphs  and  Ghibellines 
contributed,  perhaps  more  than  any  other  cause,  to  mar  the  prosperity  of 
Italy,  during  the  period  of  which  we  are  speaking.  To  them  chiefly,  are 
we  to  ascribe  the  decline  and  downfall  of  many  of  the  Italian  republics. 
These  factions  originated  in  Germany,  after  the  death  of  the  Emperor 
Henry  VI.  in  1197.  Two  aspirants,  Philip  duke  of  Swabia,  and  Otto 
duke  of  Saxony  and  Bavaria,  maintained  a  long  and  bloody  contest  for  the 
imperial  crown.  The  former  belonged  to  the  family  of  the  Ghibellini ; 

1  See  Ilallam,  ibid. 

2  See  Hallam’s  Middle  Agee,  chap,  iii,  p.  134-5.  Also  Muratori,  Dissert.  48,  .\ntiq.  Medii  .SIvi. 


144 


INFLUENCE  OF  CATHOLICITY 


and  the  latter  to  that  of  the  Este-Guelphi.  Both  families  were  originally 
from  Italy,  whe're  they  were  still  numerous  and  influential.*  The  contest 
between  them  raged  even  more  fiercely,  and  for  a  much  longer  time,  in 
Italy  than  in  Germany  itself.  In  fact,  the  greatest  political  misfortunes 
of  Italy,  in  every  age,  have  arisen  from  her  having  been  drawn  into  the 
vortex  of  German  politics,  and  having  become,  against  her  will,  the 
theater  of  war  for  all  Europe.  These  bloody  factions  continued  to  disturb 
her  for  many  centuries.  The  Guelphs  advocated  the  independence  of 
Italy  ;  the  Ghibellines  sought  to  fasten  on  the  neck  of  the  Italians  the 
imperial  yoke  of  Germany.  It  was  but  a  renewal  of  the  old  contest, 
which  had  a’iven  rise  to  the  Lombard  League,  and  birth  to  the  Italian 
republics.  During  all  this  protracted  struggle,  the  Popes  were  found 
ranged  on  the  side  of  the  Guelphs  ;  and  they  thus  exerted  all  their 
influence  to  promote  Italian  liberty.  Can  any  one  blame  them  for  sc 
doing?  What  right  had  Germany  to  crush  Italian  liberty?  Voltaire 
himself  applauds  them  for  their  course,^  and  he  says  that  the  destruction 
of  Milan  by  Frederick  Barbarossa  would  of  itself  “  suffice  to  justify  the 
Popes  for  all  they  did.”^  We  may  here  remark,  in  general,  that  the  Popes 
during  the  middle  ages,  having  been  necessarily  drawn  by  the  circum¬ 
stances  of  the  times  into  European  politics,  used  their  influence,  almost 
without  an  exception,  for  checking  tyranny,  and  maintaining  the  rights 
of  the  people.  And  the  more  we  fathom  the  interesting  history  of  that 
period,  the  more  shall  we  become  convinced  of  this  great  leading  fact. 

7.  This  is  in  nothing  more  apparent,  than  in  their  long  struggle  with 
the  German  emperors  ;■*  and  in  the  exercise  by  them  of  what  is  called  the 
deposing  power.  We  care  not  to  inquire,  whether  the  Popes  had  this 
power  in  virtue  of  their  sacred  office,  or  merely  through  the  consent  and 
concession  of  the  people  and  princes  themselves,  who  often  invoked  it  in 
their  behalf.  One  thing  is  certain,  everv  exercise  of  it  was  a  blow  aimed 
at  tyranny,  and  struck  for  the  rights  of  the  people.  In  deposing  a  prince, 
tlie  Pope  simply  declared,  that  he  had  broken  his  solemn  engagement  tc 
his  people  —  to  govern  them  in  accordance  with  justice  ;  and  that  they 
were  in  consequence  freed  from  all  obligations  to. him,  growing  out  of 
their  oath  of  allegiance.  The  claim  of  the  deposing  power  necessarily 
supposed  the  doctrine  of  a  contract,  express  or  implied,  between  the  king 
and  his  people  ;  the  former  binding  himself  to  protect  their  rights,  and  to 
govern  them  justly,  and  the  latter,  under  this  condition  only,  pledging  to 
him  their  allegiance.  Every  exercise  of  the  power  kept  this  doctrine  fresh 
in  the  memory  of  the  people,  and  thereby  greatly  contributed  to  the 
unfolding  of  the  democratic  principle.  Had  the  Popes  labored  in  a  similar 
way,  to  recall  to  a  sense  of  duty  many  other  despots  of  that  period,  the 

1  See  Muratori,  Antiquit,  etc.,  Dissert.  41,  for  a  full  account  of  the.^e  “  iliaboliche  fazioni,”  as  he 
Call?  them. 

2  Essai  sur  les  Moeurs,  tom.  i,  chap,  xxxvii  and  xlv,  and  tom.  ii,  chap  xlvii. 

o  Ibid  tom.  ii,  chap  Ixi. — 

4  The  Germanic  empire  was  styled  the  Holy  Roman  Empire.  Voltaire  (ibid)  with  his  usual 
caustic  wit,  and  with  unusual  truth,  remarks, that  this  was  a  complete  misnomer  ;  —  '*  it  was  neither 
Holy,  nor  Roman,  nor  Etnpire.'' 


ON  CIVIL  LIBERTY. 


145 


heart  of  every  patriot  would  leap  with  joy.  The  circumstances  which 
gave  rise  to  this  power  having  ceased,  nearly  three  hundred  years  since, 
the  claim  to  it  has  been  abandoned. 

8.  Of  the  old  Catholic  republics,  two  yet  remain,  standing  monuments 
of  the  influence  of  Catholicity  on  free  institutions.  The  one  is  imbosomed 
in  the  Pyrennees  of  Catholic  Spain,  and  the  other  is  perched  on  the 
Appenines  of  Catholic  Italy.  The  very  names  of  x\ndorra  and  San 
Marino  are  enough  to  refute  the  assertion,  that  Catholicity  is  opposed  to 
republican  governments.  Both  of  these  little  republics  owed  their  origin 
directly  to  the  Catholic  religion.  That  of  Andorra  was  founded  by  a 
Catholic  bishop,*  and  that  of  San  Marino,  by  a  Catholic  monk,  whose 
name  it  bears.^  The  bishops  of  Urgel  have  been,  and  are  still,  the 
protectors  of  the  former  ;  and  the  Roman  Pontiffs  of  the  latter.^  Andorra 
b.as  continued  to  exist,  with  few  political  vicissitudes,  for  more  than  a 
thousand  years ;  while  San  Marino  dates  back  her  history  more  than 
fifteen  hundred  years,  and  is  therefore  not  only  the  oldest  republic  in  the 
world,  but  perliaps  the  oldest  government  in  Europe.  The  former,  to  a 
territory  of  two  hundred  English  square  miles,  has  a  population  of  fifteen 
thousand  ;  while  the  latter,  with  half  the  population,  has  a  territory  of 
only  twenty-one  square  miles.  Both  of  them  are  governed  by  officers 

1  A  little  after  the  beginning  of  the  ninth  centur}'^,  Louis  Le  Debonnaire,  the  successor  of 
Charlemagne,  ceded  the  territory  of  Andorra  to  the  bisliops  of  Urgel.  These  exercised  a  very 
mild  feudal  sovereignty  over  the  republic  for  many  centuries  ;  but  the  real  authority  w.as  by  them 
permitted  to  be  exercised  by  two  Syndics,  or  governor.s,  elected  by  a  council  of  twenty-four  members, 
who  were  themselves  chosen  by  the  people  of  the  si.x  principal  towns  of  the  republic.  The  bishop 
of  Urgel  now  exercises  only  a  spiritual  jurisdiction  over  Andorra;  even  the  loose  authority  growing 
out  of  the  feudal  system,  having  ceased  with  the  last,  remnant  of  that  sys  em  in  Europe,  more  than 
fifty  years  since. —  See  Make  Brun's  Geograi/hy. 

2  Towards  the  close  of  the  third  century,  the  emperor  Diocletian  determined  to  rebuild  the  c*.ty 
of  Aritmnum  or  Kimini,  which  had  fallen  to  ruins.  For  this  pui pose,  he  invited  from  Dalmatia, 
his  native  country,  a  number  of  mechanics  and  architects.  His  invitation  wa.s  accepted,  and,  ia 
the  language  of  the  liistoriau  of  lliinini,  (Clementini,  Raccolto  Historico,  infra  cit.)  ‘^venne  atl 
Ariminum  un  gran  numero  di  architetti,  scalptUini.  o,  diciamo  tagliapietri,  e  muratori,  e  con  essi 
un' injinita  d' operai  Schiavoni ;  —  there  came  to  Ariminnra  a  great  number  of  architects,  stone¬ 
cutters  and  masons,  and  with  these  an  infinite  number  of  Schlavonian  workmen.”  Among  these 
was  one  .Marinus,  a  man  of  excellent  character  and  a  fervent  Christian.  Kimini  was  soon  restored 
to  more  than  its  ancient  glory.  But  in  303.  Diocletian's  partiality  for  this  city  was  turned  inta 
hatred,  on  account  of  the  vast  number  of  Christians  who  lived  within  its  walls.  In  the  bloody 
persecution  which  he  raised  against  the  Church,  the  streets  of  Kimini  ’■'■flowed  with  rivers  of 
Catholic  bloody  not  to  earth  but  to  heaven.^'  (Clemeutini  infra  cit.)  Marinus,  with  the  miserable 
remnant  of  the  slaughtered  Christians,  fied  to  the  neighboring  heights  of  Alonte  Titano,  where  he 
gave  himself  up  to  prayer  and  penance.  Ills  reputation  for  wisdom  and  sanctity,  as  well  as  similar 
persecutions,  brought  great  numbers  of  his  coUutr>iuen  and  of  Italians  to  his  place  of  retreat;, 
and  thus  was  laid  the  foumiation  of  the  republic  of  Sau  Marino,  named  after  its  founder,  who  also 
gave  his  name  to  Monte  Titano.  Marinus  at  ended  a  council  held  at  Kimini  early  in  the  fourth 
century  ;  he  is  styled  in  its  acts  Diaconus,  or  deacon.  He  died  in  a  good  old  age,  towards  the  close- 
of  that  century  ;  his  body  was  buried  on  the  mountain,  and  miracles  were  said  to  have  been  sviou'’^ht 
at  his  tomb.  Ills  ashes  are  now  preserved  in  the  church  of  San  .Vlariuo,  the  principal  one  of  the 
republic,  where  there  is  over  the  high  altar  a  sracue  of  the  s  aint,  holding  in  its  hand  the  figure  of  a 
mountain  crowned  with  three  towers, —  the  coat  of  arms  of  the  republic.  (See  Clementiui ;  also 
Slatteo  Valli,  hifra  cit.) 

3.  For  a  full  account  of  the  republic  of  San  Marino,  see  “  Dele’  Origine  e  governo  della  republica 
di  San  Marino,  di  Matteo  Valli,  secretario  e  cittadiiio  di  esso  republica.”  Padova,  1633.  .\lso 
“  Clementini,  Kaccolto  i.storico  della  fondazione  di  Kimini,”  2  vols  Ito.  Kimini,  1617.  When  Cardinal 
Alberoni,  about  a  century  ago,  sought  to  reduce  this  little  republic  under  the  temporal  sovereignty 
of  the  Pope,  the  Pontiff  disapproved  of  his  design,  and  restored  to  the  republic  its  ancient  privileges 


146 


INFLUENCE  OF  CATHOLICITY 


of  their  own  choice  ;  and  the  government  of  San  Marino  in  particular,  is 
conducted  on  the  most  radically  democratic  principles. 

The  legislative  body  consists  of  the  Council  of  Sixty,  one  half  of  whom 
at  least  are,  by  law,  to  be  chosen  from  the  plebeian  order;  and  of  the 
Arrengo,  or  general  assembly,  summoned  under  extraordinary  circum¬ 
stances,  in  which  all  the  families  of  the  republic  are  to  be  represented.  The 
executive  is  lodged  in  two  capitanei  regyenti,  or  governors,  chosen  every 
six  months,  and  holding  jurisdiction,  one  in  the  city  of  San  Marino,  and  the 
other  in  the  country;  —  so  jealous  are  these  old  republicans  of  placing 
po.wer  in  the  hands  of  one  man  !  The  judiciary  department  is  managed  by 
a  commissary,  who  is  required  by  law  to  be  a  foreigner,  —  a  native  of  some 
other  part  of  Italy,  — in  order  that,  in  the  discharge  of  his  office,  he  may 
be  biassed  by  no  undue  prejudices  resulting  from  family  connections.* 
When  Addison  visited  the  republic  in  1700,  he  ‘‘scarcely  met  with  any  in 
the  place  who  had  not  a  tincture  of  learning.^  He  also  saw  the  collection 
of  the  laws  of  the  republic,  published  in  Latin,  in  one  volume  folio,  under 
the  title :  “  Statuta  illustrissimae  reipublicse  Sancti  Marini.”  When 
Napoleon,  at  the  head  of  his  victorious  French  troops,  was  in  the  neigh¬ 
borhood  of  San  Marino,  in  1797,  he  paused,  and  sent  a  congratulatory  dep¬ 
utation  to  the  republic,  “which  expressed  the  reverence  felt  by  her  young 
sister,  France,  for  so  ancient  and  free  a  commonwealth,  and  offered,  besides 
an  increase  of  territory,  a  present  of  four  pieces  of  artillery.”  The  present 
was  gratefully  accepted,  but  the  other  tempting  offer  was  wisely  declined  ! 

9.  The  monastic  institute,  as  we  have  seen,  laid  the  foundations  of  the 
republic  of  San  Marino  in  the  fourth  century ;  —  it  subsequently  did  more 
for  civil  liberty,  by  furnishing  the  best  models  for  free  institutions.  In  the 
beginning  of  the  thirteenth  century,  arose  the  two  religious  orders  of  St. 
Francis  and  St.  Dominic,  furnishing  the  Church,  as  a  late  eloquent  writer’ 
has  well  said,  with  its  two  greatest  arms  of  poverty  and  eloquence. 

The  forms  of  government  which  these  men  established  for  their  respective 
orders,  contained  many  elements  of  democracy.  The  general  of  the  Fran¬ 
ciscans  was  elected  for  four  years,  and  that  of  the  Dominicans  for  six 
years.**  The  local  superiors  were  also  elected  for  a  certain  term  of  years  ; 
and  in  each  society  rules  were  made  to  prevent  the  too  frequent  election  of 
the  same  individual.  The  monks  were  ever  the  friends  of  the  lower 

1  An  anecdote,  current  in  Italy,  will  serve  to  show  how  justice  is  administered  at  San  Marino.  A 
merchant  of  Venice  visited  the  republic  to  collect  a  debt  from  one  of  its  citizens,  who  bad  tlelav  ed  or 
declined  payment.  Ue  was  conducted  to  the  chief  justice,  whom  he  found  in  a  large  vat,  treading 
out  grapes  for  wine  with  his  naked  feet.  He  stated  his  case,  without  much  hope  of  receiving  pay¬ 
ment.  The  justice  immediately  summoned  the  delinquent  debtor,  who  acknowledged  the  debt,  but 
pleaded  inability.  The  indignant  judge  however  immediately  decreed,  that  his  house  should  be  sold 
to  meet  the  demand.  To  prevent  this,  the  citizen  soon  produced  the  amount  of  the  debt,  and  the 
Venitian  returned  home,  well  satisfied  with  his  journey.  Having  afierwards  witnes.sed  the  delays  and 
chicanery  of  the  Venitian  courts,  he  exclaimed  :  “  Vale  piu  un  pistad’  uva  di  San  Marino,  che  dieci 
parruchoiii  di  Venetia!  One  grape-trader  of  San  Marino  is  worth  more  than  ten  big-wigs  (judges) 
of  Venice  !  ” 

2  See  Addison’s  “  Letters  from  Italy.”  3  La  (lordaire,  “  Apology  for  the  Order  of  St.  Dominic.” 

4  This,  at  least,  is  the  rule  at  present  in  the  Domi  nican  order ;  originally  it  was  different,  the  gen¬ 
eral  having  been  elected  for  life.  The  change,  however,  took  place  at  an  early  period  in  the  history 
Dt  the  Order ;  we  believe,  in  the  thirteenth  century,  \fnder  St.  Raymond  de  Pennafort,  who  wu 
general  in  1238. 


ON  CIVIL  LIBERTY. 


147 


classes,  and  they  did  much  to  elevate  their  condition  in  society.  Born 
tliemselves  in  general  among  the  poor,  and  having  made  a  vow  of  poverty, 
their  sympathies  were  naturally  with  the  poor.  Mingling  constantly  with 
the  people,  and  entering  into  all  their  wants,  their  word  and  example  exer¬ 
cised  a  most  humanizing  influence  on  the  rude  state  of  society  during  the 
middle  ages. 

10.  If  any  doubt  remain  as  to  the  favorable  influence  of  Catholicity 
3n  civil  liberty,  it  would  be  dispelled  by  the  express  teaching  of  the  theo¬ 
logians,  writing  in  accordance  with  the  principles  and  the  spirit  of  the 
Church.  Not  to  extend  this  paper  too  much,  we  will  confine  ourselves  to 
the  authority  of  the  great  St.  Thomas  Aquinas,  who,  as  a  theologian,  has 
perhaps  had  greater  weight  in  the  Catholic  Church  than  any  other  man. 
His  testimony  may  also  show  us,  what  were  the  general  sentiments  of  the 
schoolmen  in  the  thirteenth  century,  when  he  wrote.  Speaking  of  the 
origin  of  civil  power  and  the  objects  of  law,  he  lays  down  these  principles: 

The  law,  strictly  speaking,  is  directed  primarily  and  principally  to  the 
common  good:  and  to  decree  any  thing  for  the  common  benefit,  belongs 
either  to  the  whole  body  of  the  peopUyOr  to  some  one  acting  in  their  place 
He  pronounces  the  following  opinion  as  to  the  best  form  of  government : 
“  Wherefore  the  choice  of  rulers  in  any  state  or  kingdom  is  best,  when  one 
is  chosen  for  his  merit  to  preside  over  all,  and  under  him  are  other  rulers 
chosen  for  their  merit,  and  the  government  belongs  to  all,  because  the  rulers 
may  be  chosen  from  any  class  of  society,  and  the  choice  is  made  by  ally‘s 
One  would  think  that  he  is  hearing  a  democrat  of  the  modern  stamp,  and 
yet  it  is  a  monk  of  the  dark  ages !  Many  other  testimonies  of  similar  import 
might  be  cited,  but  these  will  suffice.’ 

11.  With  these  principles  generally  received,  and  with  the  other  influ¬ 
ences  noticed  above  steadily  acting  on  society,  we  cannot  wonder  at  the 
rapid  development  of  the  democratic  principle  in  the  thirteenth  and  follow¬ 
ing  centuries.  Were  the  Catholic  bishops  and  barons,  who  wrested  Magna 
Charta  from  the  hands  of  the  tyrant  John,  on  the  famous  plain  of  Runny- 
mede,  in  1215,  enemies  of  civil  liberty?  And  yet,  that  great  charter  of 
English  rights,  which  secured  trial  by  jury,  fixed  courts,  taxation  only  with 
the  consent  of  the  people,  and  habeas  corpus,  contained  no  new  provisions; 
it  was  but  the  revival  of  a  charter  one  hundred  and  fifty  years  older,  granted 
by  Edward  the  Confessor,  and  discovered  in  the  archives  of  London,  by 
that  great  champion  of  English  libei-ty.  Cardinal  Stephen  Langion, 
archbishop  of  Canterbury/  (See  Note  A.,  page  635.) 

12.  The  good  old  Catholic  times  produced  patriots  and  heroes,  of  whom 
the  present  age  might  well  be  proud.  William  Wallace,  defeated  at  Buscen- 
neth,  fell  a  martyr  to  the  liberty  of  his  native  Scotland  in  1305.  Roberi 
Bruce  achieved  what  Wallace  had  bled  for  not  in  vain,  —  the  independence 
of  his  country.  He  won,  in  1314,  the  decisive  battle  of  Bannockburn, 

1  Summa  The<»logiae.  1  2.  1.  Quaest.  Art.  iii,  Ilesp.  2  Ibid.  Quaest.  cv.  art.  1, 

3  For  a  fuller  exposition  of  what  the  leading  Catholic  divines  have  taught  on  the  nature  and  limits 
of  civil  government,  see  Balmes,  sup  cit.  ch.  xiix.  seqq. 

4  See  ilurter's  “  Life  of  Innocent  III,’’  etc.  vol  ii,  p.  686 


148 


INFLUENCE  OF  CATHOLICITY 


whicli  resulted  in  tlie  expulsion  of  the  Englisli  invaders  from  Scotland. 
Are  the  Hungarians,  and  Poles,  and  Spaniards,  and  French,  wlio  fought 
for  centuries  the  battles  of  European  independence  against  the  Saracens 
and  Turks,  to  be  set  down  as  enemies  of  freedom?  Are  the  brave  knights 
of  St.  John,  who  so  heroically  devoted  themselves  for  the  liberty  of 
Europe  at  Rhodes  and  at  Malta,  also  to  be  ranked  with  the  enemies  of 
human  rights  ? 

13.  Who  will  stigmatize  as  lovers  of  despotism  the  brave  heroes,  Wil¬ 
liam  Tell,  Furst,  Werner,  and  Melchtal,  who,  at  the  head  of  four  or  five 
hundred  Swiss,  fought  the  battle  of  Morgarten  in  1307,  and  drove  back 
an  invading  army  of  twenty  thousand  Austrians  ?  And  yet  these  brave 
men,  who  laid  the  foundation  of  the  Swiss  Republic,  were  all  Roman 
Catholics  ;  and  in  nobly  asserting  the  cause  of  freedom,  they  surely  did 
not  act  in  opposition  to  their  principles  as  Catholics. 

14.  And  still,  in  the  face  of  all  these  facts,  and  of  many  others  which 
might  be  alleged,  we  are  to 'be  told  that  Catholicity  is  the  friend  of  des¬ 
potism,  and  the  sworn  enemy  of  republican  government !  And  that, 
forsooth,  all  our  free  institutions  are  to  be  ascribed  to  the  Protestant 
reformation  !  If  this  be  so,  is  it  not  a  little  strange  that  wherever 
Protestantism  appeared  in  Europe,  and  especially  wherever  it  gained  the 
ascendency,  the  democratic  principle  was  weakened,  and  the  arm  of 
monarchy  strengthened?  Yet  this  fact  is  incontestable.  Where  now  are 
the  liberties  of  Germany,  established  by  her  people,  and  recognized  by 
her  emperors  -and  princes,  in  the  middle  ages  ?  What  has  become  of  the 
great  democratic  principle  so  generally  received  during  that  period,  that  the 
people  are  not  to  be  taxed  without  their  own  consent?  What  has  become 
of  the  representative  system,  by  which  each  city  and  province  of  the  empiie 
had  a  voice  in  the  general  diet?  These  have  all  vanished.  The  fate 
of  Germany  is  now  decided,  not  by  the  voice  of  her  once  free  people, 
but  by  the  swords  and  bayonets  of  her  immense  standing  armies. 
These  constitute  the  ultima  ratio  assigned  by  her  emperors  and  kings 
for  any  laws  they  may  choose  to  enact  !  And  it  must  be  confessed 
that  this  reason,  if  not  altogether  satisfactory,  is  at  least  conclusive. 
Where  are  now  the  free  cities  of  Germany,  once  so  famous  ?  Alas  ! 
they  have  dwindled  down  to  two  or  three,  and  these  shorn  of  half  their 
honors ! 

■  Whence  this  great  change  in  her  social  condition  ?  Our  vision  must 
be  very  dull  indeed,  not  to  perceive  that  it  occurred  in  the  sixteenth 
century;  and  that  the  revolution,  called  the  reformation,  caused  it  in  some 
places,  and  occasioned  it  in  others.  The  political  excitement,  and  the 
bloody  wars  to  which  that  revolution  gave  rise,  afforded  an  excellent 
opportunity  to  the  German  princes  to  grasp  at  absolute  power.  Amidst 
the  ao'itations  of  society,  they  seized  on  the  golden  prize  thus  offered  to 
their  ambition,  and  bore  it  off  triumphantly  !  And  did  the  Protestants  of 
Germany  resist  these  pretensions  ?  On  the  contrary  they  favored  them. 
Though  they  wore  clamoiing  for  liberty,  and  struggling  for  emancipation 


ON  CIVIL  LIBERTY. 


149 


from  what  they  were  pleased  to  call  a  religious  despotism,  }  et  they  tamely 
yielded  their  political  rights  to  the  first  despot  who  espoused,  their  cause, 
and  offered  to  protect  them  in  their  religious  innovation  !  They  gave 
themselves  up,  body  and  soul, —  bound  hand  and  foot, —  to  a  real  in  order 
to  escape  an  imaginary  despotism  !  We  confidently  appeal  to  the  whole 
history  of  that  period,  to  show  that  this  is  no  exaggeration,  and  that  the 
picture  is  not  even  too  highly  colored.  M.  Guizot,  a  Protestant,  and.  a 
historian  of  great  weight,  expressly  asserts  '■Hi tat  the  emancipation  of  the 
human  mind,  (by  the  reformation)  and  absolute  monarchy  triumphed  sim~ 
ultaneously  throughout  Europe}  And  if  he  had  not  admitted  it,  standing 
monuments  would  fully  attest  the  fact.  Every  Protestant  kingdom  on  the 
continent  of  Europe  has  been  since  the  reformation,  and  is  still,  an  absolute 
diespotism  !  Every  one  of  them  has  an  established  religion,  and  recognizes 
in  the  king  absolute  power,  civil  and  ecclesiastical !  Many  of  them,  as 
Prussia,  for  example,  are  military  despotisms,  in  which  every  citizen  is 
bound  to  military  service  ! 

The  Protestant  reformation  is  directly  responsible  for  all  this ;  for  it 
certainly  caused  all  these  political  evils,  wherever  it  gained  the  ascendency. 
It  indirectly  occasioned  political  changes  of  a  similar  character  in  most 
other  countries  of  Europe.  To  preserve  themselves  from  the  social  dis¬ 
turbances,  which  the  reformation  had  caused  wherever  it  had  made  its 
appearance,  Catholic  princes  adopted  rigid  precautionary  measures,  and 
their  subjects,  under  the  excitement  of  the  times,  willingly  resigning  a 
portion  of  their  liberties  in  order  to  enable  their  princes  to  ward  oflF  the 
threatened  evil,  the  Catholic  .governments  of  Europe  became,  many  of 
,  them,  absolute  monarchies.  These  influences  contributed  much  to  pro¬ 
duce  thp  effects  just  named  in  the  Catholic  governments  of  Austria, 
Fmnce,  Spain,  and  Portugal. 

In  England,  the  i-eformation  crushed  the  liberties  of  the  people  trans¬ 
mitted  to  them  by  their  Catholic  ancestors,  and  embodied  in  the  Catholic 
Magna  Charta.  The  tyrant  Henry  VIII.  trampled  with  impunity  on 
almost  every  privilege  secured  by  that  instrument.  Royal  prerogative 
swallowed  up  every  other  element  of  government,  both  civil  and  religious. 
The  king  was  every  thing, — supreme  in  church  and  state;  the  parliament 
and  the  people  were  nothing, — a  mere  cypher.  This  state  of  things  con¬ 
tinued,  with  the  brief  and  troubled  interval  of  Cromwell,  or  of  the  soi 
distant  “  commonwealth”  excepted,  until  the  revolution  in  1688, — a  period 
of  one  hundred  and  fifty  years. 

And  what  did  the  revolution  effect  ?  It  did  no  more  than  restore  to 
England  the  provisions  of  her  Catholic  Magna  Charta,  which  instrument, 
during  the  three  hundred  years  preceding  the  reformation,  had  been 
renewed  and  extended  at  least  thirty  times.*  The  glorious  revolution 
indeed  ! !  It  did  no  more  than  repair  the  ravages  committed  by  Protes¬ 
tantism  on  the  British  constitution  during  the  previous  hundred  and  fifty 

1  Ijectures  on  Civilization  in  Modern  Europe,  p.  300,  et  seq.  Though  he  admits  this  fact,  yet  he 
strangely  enough,  to  show  that  Protestantism  emancipated  the  human  mind  and  originated 
fre«>  institutions  1  So  much  for  modern  eclecticism. 

R2 


150 


INFLUENCE  OF  CATHOLICITY. 


years,  and  to  restore  that  constitution  to  its  ancient  Catholic  integTity.  It 
did  not  even  do  this  to  the  fullest  extent ;  for  it  refused  to  grant  protection 
and  the  most  unalienable  civil  privileges  to  the  Catholic  body,  to  whom 
the  British  were  indebted  for  the  Magna  Charta,  and  their  glorious  con¬ 
stitution.  Nor  was  this  body  emancipated  from  political  slavery  until 
1 829, — one  hundred  and  forty  one  years  later;  and  then  the  act  was  passed 
with  a  bad  grace,  nor  was  it  full  in  its  measure  of  justice, —  the  tithe  system 
and  other  intolerable  evils  still  remaining  unrepealed  ! 

15.  We  might  bring  the  subject  home  to  our  own  times  and  country, 
and  show  that  the  Catholics  of  the  colony  of  Maryland,  were  the  hist  to 
proclaim  universal  liberty,  civil  and  religious,  in  North  America 
tiiat  in  the  war  for  independence  with  Protestant  England,  Catholic* 
France  came  generously  and  eftectually  to  our  assistance;  that  Irish 
and  American  Catholics  fought  side  by  side  with  their  Protestant 
fellow-citizens  in  that  eventful  war;^  that  the  Maryland  line  which  bled 
so  freely  at  Camden  with  the  Catholic  Baron  Be  Kalb,  while  Gates  and  his 
Protestant  militia  were  consulting  their  safety  by  flight,  was  composed  to 
a  great  extent  of  Catholic  soldiers ;  that  there  was  no  Catholic  traitor 
during  our  revolution  ;  that  the  one  who  periled  most  in  signing  the  De¬ 
claration  of  Independence,  and  who  was  the  last  survivor  of  that  noble 
band  of  patriots,  was  the  illustrious  Catholic,  Charles  Carroll  of  Carrolton  ; 
that  half  the  generals  and  officers  of  our  revolution, —  Lafayette,  Pulaski, 
Count  de  Grasse,  Rochambeau,  Be  Kalb,  Kosciusko,  and  many  others, 
were  Catholics  ; — and  that  the  first  commodore  appointed  by  Washington 
to  form  our  infant  navy  was  the  Irish  Catholic  —  Barry.  These  facts, 
which  are  but  a  few  of  those  which  might  be  adduced,  prove  conclusively 
that  Catholicity  is  still,  what  she  was  in  the  middle  ages,  the  steadfast  friend 
of  free  institutions.^ 

To  conclude :  Can  it  be  that  Catholicity,  which  saved  Europe  from 
barbarism  and  a  foreign  Mahommedan  despotism, — which  in  every  age 
has  been  the  advocate  of  free  principles,  and  the  mother  of  heroes  and  of 
rej)ublics,  - —  which  originated  Magna  Charta  and  laid  the  foundation  of 
liberty  in  every  country  in  Europe, — and  which  in  our  own  day  and 
country  has  evinced  a  similar  spirit, —  is  the  enemy  of  free  principles  ? 
We  must  blot  out  the  facts  of  history,  before  we  can  come  to  any  sucli 
conclusion  !  If  history  is  at  all  to  be  relied  on,  we  must  conclude,  that 

THE  INLUENCE  OF  THE  CaTHOLIC  ChURCH  HAS  BEEN  FAVORABLE  TO  CiVIL 

Liberty. 

1  See  a  Feries  of  Tery  able  articles  in  the  Dublin  Review,  under  the  title,  “  Arbitrary  Bower, 
Popery,  Protestantism,”— republished  in  a  duodecimo  volume  by  Mr  Fithian  ;  where  this  and  many 
similar  facts  are  proved  by  incontestable  evidence. — Dublin  Review,  Nos.  xv,  xviii.  xix. 

2  See  Bancroft’s  ( Proto tant)  History  of  the  United  States,  Vol.  i.  Colony  of  Maryland, 

3  See  a  letter  of  General  Washington  to  Charles  Carroll  of  Carrolton  and  Bishop  Carroll,  written 
in  March,  1790;  in  which  he  bears  honorable  evidence  to  this  fact,  alleging  it  as  a  reason  why 
Catholics  in  this  country  should  have  equal  rights  with  their  Protestant  fellow-citizens. 

4  De  Tocqueville,  a  good  judge  in  such  matrers,  says  ”  that  the  Catholics  constitute  the  most 
democratic  class  of  citizens  in  the  United  States.”  .4nd  to  account  for  this  fact,  he  enters  hito  a 
cour.-;e  of  philosophic  reasoning  to  show  that  this  is  a  necessary  result  of  Catholic  principles. — Ho 
wiocmcy  in  America,  p.  281 :  New  York  edition,  1838. 


VIII.  AGE  OF  POPE  GREGORY  VII. 

THE  DEPOSING  POWER.* 


Importance  of  the  subject— Society  s(ru>rgling  into  form— Hildebrand— Ilis  cotemporaries — Histor¬ 
ical  portraits  and  parallels— Napoleon’s  opinion  of  Gregory  VII. — IIow  the  Pontiff  has  been  attacked 
by  his  enemies — And  how  defended  by  Voigt  — The  great  idea  of  Gregory — His  relations  to  society  as 
its  spiritual  head— A  torrent  of  abuse  stemmed — The  question  of  investitures— Ancient  mode  of 
nominating  to  bishoprics — Contest  between  the  Popes  and  tiie  emperors  of  Germany— Papal  elect  on 
—  A.  vital  question — St.  Peter  Damian — His  relations  to  Gregory — Simony  and  disorder  timong  the 
clergy— Hildebrand  unanimously  elected  Pope — His  earlier  career— His  experience,  coolness,  and 
wisdom — Not  exceedingly  stern — His  wonderful  activity  — His  correspondence — His  mor.il  courage 
— His  temporal  relations  to  society — Distracted  state  of  Europe — Princes  swearing  fealty  to  the 
Pope — His  protectorate  recognized  and  invoked — Gregory  not  ambitious — His  long  struggle  with 
Henry  IV. — The  Nero  of  the  twelfth  century — Otto  of  Nordlieim— Summary  of  the  whole  contest — 
Moderation  of  Gregory — How  and  why  the  Pontiff  declared  Henry  deposed— A  stroke  for  liberty- - 
Opinion  of  Voigt. 

Gregory  VII.  was  the  first  Roman  Pontiff,  who  ever  attempted  to  depose 
a  temporal  prince.  Hence  his  character,  as  well  as  that  of  his  age,  has 
awakened  much  interest  and  elicited  considerable  historical  inquiry.  Men 
have  naturally  sought  to  know  why,  and  under  what  circumstances,  he 
maintained  the  claim  to  a  power  seemingly  so  extraordinary  in  one  who  was 
the  successor  of  the  poor  fisherman  of  Galilee.  We  will  attempt  to  throw 
some  light  upon  this  subject,  with  the  aid  of  M.  Voigt,  the  distinguished 
biographer  of  the  Pontiff,  His  testimony  will  be  deemed  unexcepLiouable 
by  the  mass  of  Gregory's  opponents ;  while,  based  as  it  is  upon  original 
documents,  carefully  examined,  it  must  have  great  weight  with  all 
impartial  men. 

The  age  of  Pope  Gregory  VII.,  was  one  of  peculiar  interest,  crowded 
with  great  and  importani  events.  It  was  an  age  of  transition.  After  the 
civil  convulsions  which  followed  the  subjugation  of  Europe  by  the  north- 
men  in  the  fifth  century,  society,  as  if  exhausted  by  over  exertion,  seems 
to  have  settled  down  into  a  species  of  lethargy  in  the  tenth  century,  reputed 
by  most  writers  the  darkest  and  most  dreary  of  all  the  period  called  the 
middle  ages.  The  eleventh  century  presents  us  the  picture  of  society  again 
struggling  into  form.  To  attain  this  consistency,  however,  it  was  neces¬ 
sary  for  it  again  to  pass  through  the  storm  of  revolution.  Commotions 
in  society  are  sometimes  as  necessary  for  its  moral  health,  as  storms  are 
in  nature  for  the  purification  of  the  atmosphere. 

*llistoire  du  Pape  Gregoire  VII.  et  de  son  siecle,  cTapres  les  monuments  originaux.  Par 
J.  Voigt,  profess,  a  Tuniversit^  de  Hall.  Traduite  de  rAllemand,  par  M.  I’Abbe 
Jager.  Paris,  1838;  2  vol.  8vo.  Ilistori/  of  Pope  Gregory  VII.  and  of  his  age^  from- 

original  documents.  By  J.  Voigt,  Professor  at  .the  University  of  Hall.  Translated  from- 
tiie  German  by  the  Abbe  Jager.  Paris,  1838.  2  vols.  8vo 


151 


152 


age  of  pope  GREGORY  VII. 


Whoever  will  take  the  trouble  to  compare  the  tenth  with  the  twelfth 
centiiiy,  must  be  convinced  that,  during  the  intervening  period,  a  greal 
man  has  passed,  and  that  his  passage  has  been  marked  by  great  events 
That  great  man  was  Hildebrand,  afterwards  Gregory  VII. ;  and  the  great 
events  a le  those  wdiicli  M.  Voigt  so  graphically  describes  in  his  history. 
Tliis  embraces  the  period  of  thirty-five  years,  from  the  birth  of  the  emperor 
Henry  IV.  in  1050,  to  the  death  of  Gregory  in  1085. 

M.  Voigt  could  not  have  chosen  a  more  interesting  or  important  subject, 
and  few  could  have  done  it  greater  justice.  His  history  is  not  confined  tc 
Gregory.  Along  with  him,  he  portrays  the  various  remarkable  personages 
who  flourished  at  the  same  time,  and  with  most  of  whom  the  Pontiff  was 
thrown  into  frequent  contact.  Among  these,  the  chief  is  Henry  IV.,  of 
Germany,  the  exact  antithesis  of  Gregory  in  all  things,  infamous  for  every 
thing  for  which  he  was  famous.  He  and  all  the  others  appear  before  us 
like  finished  portraits  from  a  master  hand  ;  — their  features  and  form  so 
clearly  marked,  that  they  remain  fixed  in  the  memory,  and  will  ever  after¬ 
wards  be  recognized  as  old  acquaintances. 

Great  men  often  appear  in  groups,  like  the  stars  in  heaven  ;  and-,  among 
the  distinguished  cotemporaines  of  Gregory,  Ave  may  mention  St.  Peter 
Damian,  St.  Anselm,  bishop  of  Lucca,  and  Desiderius,  abbot  of  Monte 
Cassino,  in  Italy,  St.  Hugh  of  Ciuni,  and  Cardinal  Hugh  de  Die,  in  France; 
Lanfranc,  arqjibishop  of  Canterbury,  and  William  the  Conqueror,  in  Eng¬ 
land  ;  and  Anno  of  Cologne,  Rodolph,  duke  of  Suabia,  and  Otto  of 
Nordheim,  in  Germany.  In  the  south  of  Italy,  the  famous  Chevalier 
Robert  Guiscard  is  seen  extending  the  Norman  power  almost  as  much  as 
William  the  Conqueror  extends  it  in  England  ;  and  the  attentive  reader  will 
not  fail  to  remark  a  great  similarity  in  the  characters  and  fortunes  of  these 
two  fierce,  but  chivalrous  Norman  chieftains.  He  will  also  detect  in  the 
life,  position  in  relation  to  Henry  IV.,  splendid  designs,  varied  fortunes, 
and  remarkable  death  of  the  great  Anno,  archbishop  of  Cologne,  many 
traits  common  to  him  with  the  great  Cardinal  Wolsey  of  England  ;  tliough 
if  the  comparison  be  strictly  carried  out,  the  palm  Avill,  perhaps,  be  awarded 
to  Anno.  Had  Henry  IV.  listened  to  his  counsels,  and  not  been  guided  too 
much  by  the  ambitious  Adalbert,  bishop  of  Bremen,  and  by  others,  the 
history  of  the  eleventh  century  would  have  been  very  different.  If  the 
jeader  be  fond  of  drawing  parallels,  he  may  find  many  things  in  the  life, 
■character  and  varied  adventures  of  the  great  Otto  of  Nordheim,.  to  remind 
him  of  that  pink  of  medijeval  chivalry,  Richard  Coeur  de  Lion. 

Finally,  in  the  excellent  Empress  Agnes,  the  mother  of  Henry  IV.,  he 
will  discover  the  most  estimable  traits  of  character ;  and  in  the  famous 
Matilda  of  Tuscany,  the  particular  friend  of  Gregory,  he  will  find  all  the 
.qualities  Avhich  constitute  a  great  and  good  prijicess.  She  combined,  in  a 
iremarkable  degree,  the  coolness,  firmness,  and  zeal  of  Gregory,  witli  the 
warlike  talents  and  impetuous  bravery'  of  Otto  of  Nordheim.  All  these 

1  S«  e  A'oigt,  (vol.  ii.  p.  436.)  for  a  curious  instance  of  her  skill  iti  arms,  when,  at  the  head  of  her 
troops,  she  surprised  and  defeated  lleury's  army  in  Lombardy. 


THE  DEPOSING  POWER. 


153 


characters  reappear  under  the  pen  of  M.  Voigt,  fresh,  and,  as  it  were, 
instinct  with  life  ;  and  it  requires  but  little  exertion  of  fancy,  to  behold  thera 
again  acting  over  before  us  their  respective  parts  in  history,  Gregory  VII. 
being  tlie  great  master  spirit  and  actor,  whose  influence  is  felt  by  them  all. 
Kcav  men'  perhaps,  have  been  more  differently  judged  by  their  cotempo¬ 
raries,  and  by  posterity,  than  this  illustrious  Pontiff.  That  he  was  a  great 
man,  with  transcendent  genius,  and  that  he  did  great  things,  all  readily 
admit ;  and  Napoleon,  an  excellent  judge  of  human  greatness,  showed  his 
‘discrimination  when  lie  said;  “If  I  were  not  Napoleon,  I  would  wish 
to  be  Gregory  VII. !’’  By  his  enemies,  he  has  been  represented  as  an 
ambitious  man,  who  aimed  at  universal  dominion,  both  civil  and  ecclesias¬ 
tical,  reckless  of  the  means  for  attaining  his  object.  Some  Catholics  have 
thought,  that  he  pushed  the  claims  of  his  see  too  far.  The  Church  has 
erected  altars  to  his  memory,  as  to  one  of  the  most  devoted  champions  of 
her  liberty  and  rights,  and  one  of  the  greatest  promoters  of  stainless  purity 
among  her  clergy. 

It  is  a  singular  stroke  of  divine  Providence,  that  perhaps  the  best  apology 
for  the  course  thus  pursued  by  the  Church,  comes  to  us  from  a  Protestant 
pen,  and  from  that  Germany  too,  with  which  Gregory  sustained  so  long 
and  so  arduous  a  struggle.  M.  Voigt  has  defended  him,  not,  as  he  had 
been  attacked,  by  mere  declamation,  but  by  the  evidence  of  facts  drawn 
from  CO  temporary  writers,  such  as  Lambert,  Paul  Bernried,  Domnizo, 
Berthold  of  Constance,  Leo  Ostiensis,  Hermann,  Fiore ntini,  Aventin,  Car¬ 
dinal  Arago,  and  others.  He  has  thoroughly  sifted  the  testimony  of  these 
authors,  and  presented  the  facts  in  chronological  order,  yet  woven  into  a 
narrative  almost  as  interesting  as  any  work  of  fiction.  Though  a  Protestant, 
yet  he  is  so  just  and  moderate,  and  withal  so  accurate,  that  the  severe 
critic,  the  Abbe  Jager,  who  translated  his  work  into  French,  found  little 
of  importance  to  correct,  and  still  less  to  add  to  the  narrative  ;  and  besides 
a  remarkably  well  written,  well  reasoned,  and  highly  wrought  introductory 
essay  of  one  hundred  pages,  his  notes  are  chiefly  valuable,  as  exhibiting 
the  original  text  where  the  historian  had  contented  himself  with  a  simple 
reference.  The  manner  of  M.  Voigt  is  very  similar  to  that  of  the  great 
English  historian,  Lingard,  embracing  many  facts  and  little  theory  ;  while 
his  style,  though  less  terse  and  condensed,  is  perhaps  more  lively,  and  his 
narrative  more  detailed  and  interesting. 

.It  is  not  our  purpose  to  write  a  lengthy  review  of  M.  Voigt’s  work,  which 
we  would  fain  hope  soon  to  see  in  an  English  dress.  We  wish  merely  to 
direct  attention  to  the  new  light,  which  so  unexceptionable  a  witness  has 
slied  upon  the  character  and  actions  of  a  man,  than  whom  few  have  been 
less  known,  and  more  misrepresented. 

Gregory  had  to  sustain  a  two-fold  relation  to  the  world  :  the  one 
spiritual,  to  the  Church,  of  which  he  was  the  visible  head ;  the  other  tem¬ 
poral,  to  civil  society,  in  the  framework  of  which  he  was  an  important 
part.  Our  object  is  to  show,  from  the  facts  which  M.  Voigt  alleges  and 
•proves,  that,  in  both  these  capacities,  his  influence  was  highly  beneficial; 


154 


AGE  OF  POPE  GREGORY  VII. 


while  his  motives  were  of  the  purest  and  most  exalted  nature.  His  great 
idea  was,  to  purify  the  church,  and  through  its  agency  to  reform 
AND  CIVILIZE  SOCIETY  :  and  his  acts  were  just  such  as  the  condition  of  the 
times  required  for  the  attainment  of  these  two  great  purposes.  The  chief 
fault  of  those  who  have  censured  him  has  been,  that  they  have  judged  his 
conduct,  not  by  the  circumstances  of  his  own  time  and  the  jurisprudence 
which  then  obtained,  but  by  the  maxims  and  ideas  of  the  present  day, — - 
than  which  nothing  could  be  more  unjust. 

I.  Our  blessed  Redeemer  foretold'  that  scandals  should  come ;  and  even  * 
under  His  own  eyes,  and  in  the  college  of  apostles,  though  taught  imme¬ 
diately  by  Himself,  a  most  grievous  scandal  was  given,  by  that  traitorous 
disciple  who  sold  his  divine  Master.  It  was  not  then  to  be  expected,  that 
the  members  of  the  church,  even  the  ministers  of  her  altars,  should  be  all 
of  them  stainless.  It  was  not  promised  that  the  gates  of  hell  should  not 
rage  against  the  Church,  but  that  they  should  not  ‘prevail?  The  storm 
was  to  howl  fiercely  around  the  ship  of  the  Church,  while  pursuing  her 
voyage  over  the  stormy  ocean  of  life;  but  in  the  hour  of  her  greatest  peril, 
wdien  every  thing  would  threaten  shipwreck,  and  tlie  timid  would  exclaim: 
‘‘Lord,  save  us,  we  perish,”  —  Jesus  would  arise  from  his  apparent 
slumber,  extend  his  hand  over  the  boiling  waves,  command  the  winds  and 
the  sea,  and  suddenly  there  should  come  a  great  calm.^ 

This  miracle  has  been  renewed  in  all  the  great  emergencies  of  the 
Church.  “  She  may  be  attacked,  she  cannot  be  conquered.”  Persecution 
has  tried  her,  and  she  came  out  fresher  and  better  than  ever.  Heresy  has 
assailed  her  on  all  sides,  and  yet  she  has  gained  the  victory.  At  the 
period  of  which  we  are  speaking,  a  flood  of  immorality  broke  in  upon  her, 
penetrating  even  within  the  sacred  chancel  of  her  sanctuary  ;  and  yet  from 
this  new  and  most  terrible  ordeal  she  was  destined  likewise  to  come  out, 
unharmed  and  unsullied.  Perhaps  the  preservation  of  the  Church,  under 
such  circumstances,  is  a  greater  miracle  of  God’s  providence  than  any 
other  recorded  in  her  annals. 

Gregory  VII.  was  the  chief  instrument  employed  by  God  for  the  cor¬ 
rection  of  the  crying  moral  evils  of  his  age.  His  vast  mind  immediately 
perceived  the  source  from  which  this  torrent  of  disorders  flowed;  and 
he  directed  all  his  gigantic  efforts  for  nearly  thirty-six  years,  towards 
drying  it  up.  The  Church  had  unworthy  ministers,  and  she  had  to  weep 
over  many  immoralities,  even  at  the  foot  of  her  altars,  precisely  because 
slie  had  been  enslaved  by  the  princes  of  the  earth, — her  canons  contemned, 
her  liberties  crushed,  and  her  very  sanctuaries  sacrilegiously  invaded,  by 
those  who  were  clothed  with  the  civil  power. 

The  right  of  investiture,  claimed  chiefly  by  the  emperors  of  Germany, 
was  the  principal  cause  of  all  these  evils  of  the  Church.  The  emperors, 
having  richly  endowed  the  bishoprics  and  abbeys,  claimed  the  right  of 
nominating  the  incumbent,  and  of  investing  the  subject  thus  appointed 
with  the  insignia  of  his  office.  The  new  incumbent  took  an  oath  of  fealty, 

1  Matt,  xviii  2  Matt  xvi.  3  Matt,  viii,  25,  26. 


r 


THE  DEPOSING  POWER.  155 

which  required,  among  other  things,  that  he  should  join  the  standard  of 
his  sovereign  with  his  armed  retainers,  whenever  called  on  to  do  so.  In 
the  appointment  to  bishoprics,  more  regard  was  often  had  to  birth  and 
military  talents,  than  to  the  virtues  and  learning  required  by  the  canons. 
What  was  still  worse,  these  preferments  were  often  purchased  by  money, 
and  the  most  unworthy  men  were  thus  thrust  into  the  holy  places.  Under 
the  wicked  and  dissolute  Henry  IV.,  simony,  and  consequent  immorality, 
became  the  order  of  the  day  in  Germany  and  northern  Italy,  where  his 
power  in  this  matter  was  the  more  baneful,  because  it  was  less  questioned. 
The  Church  was  thus  disgraced  with  wicked  ministers,  because  the 
princes  of  the  world  had  thrust  them  on  her. 

The  right  of  investiture  was  manifestly  an  usurpation  of  the  German 
emperors  and  other  princes, — at  least  in  the  sense  in  which  it  was  under¬ 
stood  and  carried  out  by  them.  It  was  viewed  not  only  by  Gregory,  but 
by  many  other  holy  men  of  the  time, — such  as  St.  Anselm  of  Luca,*  and 
St.  Peter  Damian,** — as  the  chief  cause  of  all  the  evils  which  they  so  much 
deplored.  It  was  in  direct  opposition  to  the  enactments  of  the  ancidiit 
canons  regarding  the  election  of  bishops.  These .  secured  to  the  Church 
the  right  of  choosing  her  own  ministers,  as  well  as  perfect  freedom  in  the 
exercise  of  that  right.  If  the  people  often  co-operated  in  the  election  of 
bishops,  during  the  first  centuries,  it  was  more  as  witnesses  of  the  good 
qualities  of  the  candidate,  than  as  electors  ;  and  perhaps  one  cause  of  the 
modification  of  discipline  in  this  respect  was  the  well  grounded  fear,  that 
when  the  people  would  become  more  numerous,  and  perhaps  less  pious, 
popular  clamor  might  impair  the  liberty  of  election. 

Princes  never  had  the  right  of  nomination  to  bishoprics,  without  the 
consent  and  concurrence  of  the  Church.  The  thirtieth  canon  of  those 
called  the  Apostolic, —  believed  by  the  learned  to  exhibit  pretty  accurately 
the  discipline  of  the  three  first  centuries  of  the  Church, —  pronounces 
sentence  of  deposition  against  bishops  who  receive  their  sees  from  princes. 
The  fourth  canon  of  the  great  council  of  Nice,  held  in  325,  regulates  the 
manner  of  appointing  bishops  by  the  prelates  of  the  province,  or  by  at 
least  three  of  them  ;  without  even  alluding  to  any  right  of  the  people  or  of 
princes  in  the  matter.^  The  twenty-second  canon  of  the  eighth  general 
council,  held  at  Constantinople  in  870,  goes  still  farther,  and  pronounces 
an  anathema  against  any  lay  prince,  who  would  interfere  in  the  “  election 
or  promotion  of  any  patriarch,  metropolitan,  or  bishop,  so  as  to  prevent  its 
canonical  freedom.”'*  Many  other  authorities  could  be  produced,  to  prove 
that  the  claim  set  up  by  the  princes  of  the  eleventh  century,  not  only  had 
no  sanction  from  the  Church,  but  was  in  the  very  face  of  all  its  rights 
and  laws.  By  being  liberal  to  the  Church,  temporal  princes  acquired  no  right 
to  enslave  it,  and  to  introduce  into  its  bosom  the  feudal,  on  the  ruins  of 
the  canon  law. 

Yet  this  was  precisely  what  was  attempted  to  be  done  ;  and  for  resist- 

1  Sermon,  ii.  2  Kp.  ii,  et  passim  3  Labbci.  Concil.  tom.  ii,  p.  30. 

4  Id.  Tom.  viii  p.  1141. 


156 


AGE,  OF  POPE  GREGORY  VII. 


ing  tliis  usurpation  and  contending  strongly  until  death  for  the  liberty  of, 
the  Church,  Gregory  has  sustained  so  much  obloquy  !  Gould  he  have 
done  otherwise,  without  betraying  his  duty,  and,  to  use  his  own  strong 
language,  “by  satisfying  the  caprices  of  princes,  being  hurled  with  them 
into  the  abyss  ?”  ‘  So  far  was  this  pretended  right  of  investiture  carried, 
that  the  German  emperors  even  asserted  it  in  regard  to  the  Roman  Pontiff 
himself,  thereby  seeking  to  crush  the  liberty  of  the  Church  in  its  head, — • 
in  the  only  one  able  effectually  to  resist  the  ever  encroacliing  usurpation. 

The  emperors  had  more  than  once  attempted  to  elect  and  depose  Popes 
at  will  ;  but  they  had  always  met  with  powerful  resistance  from  the 
Church,  and  never  succeeded  in  causing  more  than  temporary  confusion. 
Sometimes  called  to  the  eternal  city,  as  its  natural  guardians,  to  quell 
popular  insurrection,  or  to  assert  the  liberty  of  the  Church,  they  often 
went  beyond  the  mere  office  of  protection,  and  sought  to  rule  in  spiritual, 
as  well  as  in  temporal  matters.  In  one  of  his  journeys  to  Rome  (after  the 
middle  of  the  tenth  century,)  Otho  the  Great,  emperor  of  Germany,  with 
the  aid  of  the  antipope — styled  Leo  whom  he  had  himself  setup, — • 

had  a  decree  or  canon  passed,  by  which  the  emperor’s  right  to  interpose 
in  the  election  of  the  Pope  was  recognized  ;  and  though  the  provisions  of 
this  law  were  annulled  by  Henry  II.,  in  the  beginning  of  the  following 
century,  they  were  renewed  by  Conrad  II.,  and  they  subsequently  became 
the  cause  of  incalculable  evils  to  the  Church.  In  consequence  of  this 
innovation  on  ancient  law,  there  were  three  claimants  to  the  papal  chair  at 
one  time  ;  and  Henry  III.,  the  father  of  Henry  IV.,  paid  a  visit  to  Rome, 
and  succeeded  in  suppressing  the  schism,  without,  however,  giving  up 
the  pretended  privilege  from  which  this  and  other  evils  had  sprung. 

It  required  a  man  of  the  iron  nerve  of  Gregory  VII.  to  wrest  from  the 
hands  of  the  German  emperors,  what  they  would  not  have  willingly  resigned ! 
A.nd  how  wisely  and  how  etfectually  he  did  it,  M.  Voigt  fully  informs  us, 
and  we  shall  have  occasion  to  show  more  at  length  hereafter.  Those 
writers  who  would  fain  persuade  their  readers  that  the  controversy  about 
investitures  was  one  of  mere  form,  show  only  their  profound  ignorance  of 
history.  It  was  a  vital  question,  — one  of  liberty  or  slavery  for  the  Church. 

So  long  as  kings  and  princes  exercised  this  pretended  right,  can  we 
wonder  at  the  dreadful  evils  which  St.  Peter  Damian  so  pathetically  laments? 
Can  we  be  astonished,  that  this  good  man  should  weep,  like  another  Jere¬ 
miah,  over  the  calamities  of  God’s  people,  and  the  desecration  of  his  holy 
places  ;  or  that,  reposing  near  the  sanctuary  which  he  so  much  loved,  he 
should  shed  tears  over  its  desolation  and  abandonment,  while  the  courts  of 
princes  were  thronged  with  a.  worldly  minded  clergy?^  Can  we  wonder, 
that  when  he  had  exhausted  all  the  resources  of  prose,  he  resorted  to  poetry, 
and  wept  in  plaintive  numbers  over  the  evils  of  his  day?  And  that  finally, 
disgusted  with  a  world  which  he  did  not  love,  and  which  he  despaired  to 
be  able  to  reform,  he  fled  to  solitude,  and  devoted  himself  entirely  to 
prayer  ? 


1  Ep.  i,  11. 


2  Ep.  i,  15. 


THE  DEPOSING  POWER. 


157 


M.  Voigt  ascribes  Damian’s  retirement  to  a  feeling  of  envy  at  Hilde¬ 
brand’s  superiority.  But  there  is  little  foundation  for  this  assertion.  The 
expressions  of  Damian,  in  which  he  calls  Hildebrand  “his  holy  adversary, 
and  “  his  hostile  friend,”^  and  others  of  the  same  kind,  only  show  some 
diversity  of  opinion  and  temperament  between  the  two  illustrious  men;  but 
they  do  not  prove  tliat  tliere  existed  any  jealousy.  Hildebrand  opposed 
his  retiring,  but  Pope  Alexander  II.  permitted  it,  on  condition  that  Damian 
would  come  forth  again,  whenever  the  Church  should  need  his  services. 

Hildebrand  was  cool  and  deliberate,  Damian  was  ardent  and  enthusi¬ 
astic  ;  but  they  both  labored  together  for  the  same  glorious  object,  —  the 
extirpation  of  simony  and  incontinence  among  the  clergy,  and  the  stricter 
observance  of  the  ancient  canons.  And  that  they  were  always  good  friends, 
may  be  gathered  from  a  letter  written  by  Damian  from  solitude,  in  which, 
complaining  that  Hildebrand  had  not  written  to  him  oftener,  he  speaks  of 
the  manner  in  which  he  had  ever  co-operated  with  him:  “  in  all  his  (Hilde¬ 
brand’s)  struggles  and  victories,  he  (Damian)  had  thrown  himself  in,  not  as 
a  mere  fellow  soldier  or  follower,  but  as  a  thunder-bolt,”  an  expression 
which  shows  the  impetuosity  of  his  zeal.^ 

There  is  no  doubt,  that  the  lano-uao-e  of  St.  Peter  Damian  should  be  re- 
ceived  with  some  allowance;  but  yet  it  appears  certain,  that  the  evils  deplored 
by  him  were  both  widely  spread  and  inveterate.  How  deeply  seated  was  the 
malady,  may  be  gathered  from  the  long  and  obstinate  resistance  of  the  clergy 
of  Milan  and  Lombardy  to  the  proposed  reformation;  from  the  repeated 
tumults  in  Milan  consequent  upon  the  zealous  efforts  made  by  the  holy 
deacon  Arialdo,  and  by  the  pious  chevaliers  Landulph  and  Herlembaud,  to 
enforce  the  canons  of  the  Church  ;  from  the  tragical  death  of  Arialdo,  so 
graphically  related  by  M.  Voigt;'*  from  the  outrages  which,  in  1074,  dis¬ 
graced  the  synod  of  Erfurt,  over  which  Sigefrid,  archbishop  of  Mayence 
presided,  as  legate  of  the  Pope,  and  where  he  so  strenuously  sought  to  extir¬ 
pate  abuses;  from  tlie  elections  of  the  two  antipopes,  Cadolous  and  Guibert, 
and  the  awful  troubles  brought  upon  Rome  and  the  Church  by  their  wicked 
ambition  :  in  a  word,  from  the  whole  life  of  Gregory  VII.,  which  was  one 
continued  struggle  against  vice  and  immorality  seated  in  high  places. 
All  these  scandals  and  troubles  were  the  work  of  a  faction,  it  is  true,  but 
of  a  strong  and  powerful  facticfn,  aided  and  urged  on  by  some  of  the  greatest 
princes  of  Europe,  among  whom  Henry  IV.  of  Germany,  and  Philip  I.  of 
Prance  were  the  most  conspicuous. 

Such  was  the  sad  state  of  things  in  the  Church,  when  Hildebrand  was 
unanimously  elected  Pope  by  the  clergy  and  people  of  Rome,  in  1073.  He 
was  the  very  man  who  was  best  calculated  to  meet  the  emergency.  He 
brought  to  the  pontiffcal  chair  an  experience  of  twenty-four  years,  during 
which  he  had  been  actively  employed  in  various  important  affairs  by 
previous  Pontiffs.  From  the  pontificate  of  the  holy  Pope  Leo  IX.  (A.  D. 

1  “  Sanctus  satanas  mens  ”  2  “  Ilostilis  amicus  meus  ” 

3  Ep.  ii.  &.  “  Certaiiiiijilius  et  victoriis,  ego  me  non  commilit.onem  seu  pedissequum,  sed  quasi 

fulmeu  injeci.”  4  Vol.  1,  p.  153. 

s 


158 


AGE  OE  POPE  GREGORY  VII. 


1049),  who  had  made  him  archdeacon  of  the  Roman  Church,  to  the  day 
of  his  own  election,  he  was  the  right  arm  of  the  Church’s  defense.  So 
great  was  the  confidence  entertained  in  his  judgment,  that  St.  Peter  Damian,' 
says,  that  he  himself  followed  his  opinions  as  he  would  the  canons  of  the 
Church.  It  was  he  who  had  prompted  Bruno,  bishop  of  Toul,  nominated 
Pope  by  Henry  IV.,  to  take  off  the  insignia  of  the  papacy  at  the  monastery 
of  Clun}^,  to  walk  as  a  pilgrim  to  Rome,  and  not  to  accept  of  the  tiara, 
until  he  should  be  canonically  elected  by  the  clei-gy  and  people  of  that 
city.  This  was  his  first  step  towards  the  emancipation  of  the  Church. 
He  it  was  who  advised,  and  perhaps  even  penned  the  famous  canon^ 
of  the  Roman  council,  held  under  Nicholas  II.,  in  1059,  which  fixed  the 
mode  of  electing  the  sovereign  Pontiff  by  the  cardinals,  with  the  consent 
of  the  people,  and  made  the  approval  by  the  emperor  a  mere  personal 
privilege  to  belong  to  those  emperors  only,  to  whom  it  would  be  specially 
granted  by  the  Pope.^ 

Having  brought  to  the  pontificate  so  much  wisdom,  learned  from  expe¬ 
rience,  he  employed  it  all  in  the  government  of  the  Church.  He  undertook 
nothing  rashly.  He  was  as  cool  and  deliberate  in  taking  his  measures,  as 
he  was  firm  and  persevering  in  carrying  them  out.  All  his  efforts  for  the 
extinction  of  simony  and  incontinence  among  the  clergy,  and  every  stage 
of  his  struggle  with  Henry  IV.,  of  Germany,  evidence  his  coolness  and 
wisdom.  He  was  consistent  throughout.  Every  thing  tended  to  the 
carrying  out  of  his  great  plan,  —  to  secure  the  freedom  of  the  Church, 
and  then  to  enforce  its  ancient  canons.  He  steadily  pursued  this  darling 
object  for  nearly  thirty-six  years.  He  was  too  clearly  convinced  of  the 
soundness  of  his  principles,  and  of  the  justice  of  his  cause,  ever  to  waver 
or  falter  in  his  course  for  one  moment. 

Yet  he  was  not  excessively  stern,  as  many  are  inclined  to  believe.  He 
had  a  tender  and  susceptible  heart,  sometimes  filled  “with  an  immensity  of 
joy,”^  and  anon,  “straitened  with  the  most  cruel  grief.”^  His  conduct 
towards  Henry  IV.,  when  the  latter  humbly  sued  for  reconciliation  with 
the  Church  at  the  castle  of  Canossa,  is  not  an  exception  to  his  general  char¬ 
acter  in  this  respect.  He  indeed  treated  Henry  with  some  rigor,  because 
he  had  too  much  reason  to  doubt  the  sincerity  of  the  young  king’s  repent¬ 
ance,  and  the  event  furnished  too  sad  a  proof  of  his  forecast.  Yet  it  must 
be  borne  in  mind,  that,  though  Henry  immediately  after  broke  all  his 
solemn  oaths,  Gregory  abstained  for  more  than  three  years  from  renewing 
the  excommunication,  though  repeatedly  urged  to  do  so.  And  when  he  did 
renew  it,  it  was  with  the  greatest  reluctance. 

He  was  severe  towards  the  obstinate,  but  at  the  first  sign  of  repentance, 
his  heart  melted  with  sympathy.  His  kind  treatment  of  Berengarius,  who 
recanted  his  errors  in  the  synod  of  Rome  in  1079,  is  a  well  known  evidence 
of  this.  He  even  offered  to  pardon  the  wicked  antipope  Guibert  of  Ra- 

1  Ep.  ii,  8.  •  2  Labb.  Tom.  ix,  p.  1103. 

3  It  is  one  evidence  of  the  great  genius  and  wisdom  of  Gregory  VII.  that  tiie  requirements  of  this 
canon  are  followed,  with  but  few  modifications,  to  this  day,  in  the  election  of  the  Pope. 

4  Gaudii  repleti  immensitate,  Ep.  i,  40.  5  Circumvallat  me  dolor  immanis,  Epp.  ii,  49. 


THE  DEPOSING  POWER.  lo9 

• 

venna,  in  case  he  would  repent and  he  repeatedly  proffered  to  receive 
Henry  himself  again  into  the  Cluirch,  even  after  all  his  enormities,  if  he 
would  but  repent  and  repair  the  enormous  scandals  he  had  given.^  He 
himself  informs  us,  that  he  was  accused  of  too  much  leniency,^  and  Car¬ 
dinal  Hugh  de  Die,  his  legate  in  France,  complained  of  the  facility  with 
which  he  absolved  those  ecclesiastics  who  had  been  excommunicated  in 
French  councils/ 

His  activity  was  prodigious.  By  means  of  his  legates  he  was  every 
where  actively  engaged,  by  means  of  councils  both  provincial  and  national, 
in  reforming  abuses,  and  restoring  ecclesiastical  discipline.  His  vast  mind 
grasped  the  whole  world,  and  yet  entered  every  where  into  the  most 
minute  details  !  He  has  left  nine  books  of  letters  written  to  every  class 
of  persons,  from  the  prince  on  his  throne,  to  the  monk  in  his  cell.  His 
penetrating  eye  reached  even  Africa,  where  the  few  Christians  who  were 
then  left,  were  trampled  under  foot  by  the  Moors.®  He  was  very  solicitous 
about  the  reunion  of  the  Greek  with  the  Latin  Church.  He  was  the 
first  to  conceive  the  project  of  a  crusade,  one  great  object  of  which 
was  to  aid  the  struggling  Christians  of  the  east,  and  to  heal  the  Greek 
schism. 

This  conception  alone  would  show  the  vastness  of  his  mind.  He  made 
two  efforts  to  arouse  Europe  to  a  sense  of  its  importance  ;  —  but  Europe 
was  not  yet  prepared  to  throw  herself  on  Asia.  Hungary,  Bohemia, 
Russia,  Denmark,  and  Spain  were  all  sharers  in  his  pastoral  solicitude. 
He  seemed  to  attend  to  each  thing,  as  though  he  had  nothing  else  to  do ; 
and  even  when  beset  by  the  greatest  difficulties,  he  relaxed  in  nothing  his 
ceaseless  labors  for  the  general  good  of  the  Church.  He  celebrated  in 
Rome  no  less  than  eight  councils,  all  of  which  were  very  numerously 
attended. 

His  letters  exhibit  perhaps  the  best  portrait  of  his  mind  and  heart. 
‘His  style  is  similar  to  that  of  St.  Gregory  the  Great,  whom  he  greatly 
admired.  Those  who  accuse  him  of  worldly  ambition  have  either  not 
read,  or  have  not  understood  his  correspondence.  It  all  breathes  far 
higher  motives,  and  a  spirit  not  of  this  world.  M.  Voigt  has  exhibited 
a  condensed  analysis  of  his  principles  and  maxims  as  extracted  from  his 
letters  ;  which  analysis  evinces  great  industry,  and  a  thorough  acquaintance 
with  the  subject.® 

But  the  quality  which  most  distinguished  Gregory  was  his  moral 
courage.  No  dangers  appalled  him  ;  no  obstacles  or  difficulties  deterred 
him  from  doing  what  was  right.  His  soul  grew  with  the  events  which  it 
had  to  encounter.  “The  most  fearful  outbreaks  of  regal  or  popular 
displeasure  could  not  move  his  fixed  purpose.  He  had  planted  himself 

1  Ep.  V,  13. 

2  Cardinal  Arago  gives  us  Gregory’s  reply  to  the  Romans,  when  pressed  by  Henry’s  besieging  army 
they  besought  the  Pontiff  to  absolve  him.  Gregory  offered  to  do  it,  but  only  on  the  condition  aboY 
named.  Voigt,  vol.  ii,  p.  416. 

3  Ep.  i,  77.  4  Voigt,  vol.  ii,  p.  293.  6  Ep.  i,  22,23.  See  Voigt,  vol.  i,  p.  35. 

6  North  American  Review,  for  July,  1845. 


160 


AGE  OF  POPE  GREGORY  VII. 


on  eternal  truth,  and  the  wind  and  the  rain  might  beat  upon,  but  they 
could  never  stir  him.”  Who  will  not  admire  the  calm  composure  which 
he  manifested,  when  he  was  seized  on  Christmas-night,  at  the  very  altar, 
by  an  armed  band  of  assassins  led  on  by  Cencius  ;  when  he  was  cruelly 
beaten, —  his  hair  plucked  out,  his  pontifical  robes  torn  off,  and  himself 
dragged  off  a  prisoner  to  their  leader’s  castle  ?  Who  will  not  admire  the 
forbearance  which  requited  this  outrage,  with  so  effectual  an  interposition, 
as  screened  its  chief  perpetrator  from  the  effects  of  popular  indignation  ? 
Who  will  not  be  struck  by  the  noble  courage  manifested  by  him,  in  the 
last  council  he  held  in  Rome,  in  1083,  when,  beset  on  all  sides  with 
difficulties  innumerable, —  with  Henry’s  victorious  troops  threatening 
Rome, —  he  arose  in  the  council,  and,  with  the  face  “more  of  an  angel 
than  of  a  man,”  ‘  spoke  with  an  eloquence  so  stirring,  as  to  move  all  who 
were  present  even  unto  tears  !  This  noble  courage  was  his  great  ruling 
feeling,  strong  even  in  death  ;  and  the  memorable  words,  which  "were  the 
last  he  uttered  before  he  expired,  an  exile  at  Salerno,^  —  “  I  have  loved 
justice,  and  hated  iniquity,  and  therefore  I  die  in  exile,” — contribute 
much  to  a'ive  us  an  insio-ht  into  his  character. 

II.  Such  were  the  qualities  of  Gregory  ;  such  the  difficulties  he  had  to 
contend  with  in  fulfilling  the  duties  growing  out  of  his  spiritual  relations 
to  the  church.  He  had  to  encounter  obstacles  yet  more  fearful,  in  his 
temporal  relations  to  civil  society.  He  could  not  expect  to  carry  out  his 
favorite  plan  of  reformation,  without  being  thwarted  at  every  step  by  the 
princes  of  the  earth.  Besides  the  pernicious  influence  of  their  example, 
their  claims  in  regard  to  investiture  were,  as  we  have  seen,  openly  at  war 
with  the  liberties,  and  subversive  of  the  dearest  interests  of  the  Church. 
Gregory  saw  fully  the  difficulty  of  his  position.  He  perceived  the  storm 
which  was  gathering,  and  he  was  prepared  to  endure  its  most  merciless 
peltings.  He  quailed  not,  either  in  the  anticipation,  or  when  the  fearful 
reality  more  than  justified  his  worst  forebodings.^  ' 

The  charges  brought  against  him  by  his  enemies  are  many,  but  they 
may  be  reduced  to  two  principal  heads. 

1.  He  is  accused  of  ambition,  in  seeking  to  make  the  kings  of  Hungary, 
Dalmatia,  Sardinia,  Spain,  and  England  take  the  oath  of  fealty  to  the  holy 
see  :  and  he  is  charo-ed  with  aimino-  at  universal  dominion  in  civil  as  well 

O  O  , 

as  in.  ecclesiastical  matters.  2.  He  is  greatly  blamed  for  having  attempted 
to  depose  Henry  IV.,  emperor  of  Germany. 

We  will  endeavor  briefly  to  meet  both  these  accusations  ;  and  also  to 
prove  that,  in  his  relations  to  princes,  his  powerful  influence  was  highly 
beneficial  to  civil  society. 

1.  All  the  writers  of  the  eleventh  century  paint  Europe  as  being  in  a 
most  distracted  condition.  England  was  passing  through  a  revolution 

1  Sfeo  Labb.  Concil  tom.  x,  p.  402  “Ore  magis  angelico  quam  humano.” 

2  Dilexi  justitiain,  odi  iiiiqnitatem  ;  ideo  morior  in  exilio.  —  Paul  liernried  c.  110. 

3  Speaking  of  Henry  (Kp.  i,  11),  he  uses  this  remarkable  language  :  Et  certe  tutius  esfc  defendendo 
veritatem  pro  sui  ipsius  salute  adusque  sanguinem  nostrum  .sibi  resistere,  quam  ad  explendam  "jus 
Toluutateiu  iuiquitati  conseutiendo  secum,  quod  absit  ad  iuteritum  ruere. 


THE  DEPOSING  POWER. 


161 


under  William  the  Conqueror,  and  the  south  of  Iialy  was  also  being 
revolutionized  by  Robert  Guiscard ;  while  Spain  was  struggling  with  tho 
Moors,  and  Germany  was  torn  by  the  most  fierce  civil  wars  between 
Henry  IV.,  and  the  princes  of  the  empire.  France  was  not  free  from 
internal  troubles,  while  its  southern  frontier  was  threatened  by  the 
Saracens  ;  and  in  the  east,  Constantinople  was  tottering  to  its  fall,  and  the 
rising  dynasty  of  the  Turks  menaced  with  extermination  the  Christian 
name,  in  places  where  it  had  been  once  so  illustrious.  In  civil  society 
every  thing  was  in  a  state  of  disorder  ;  *the  laws  were  trampled  under  foot 
with  impunity  ;  and  might  and  right  were  viewed  as  almost  synonymous 
terms.  The  weak  were  oppressed  by  the  strong ;  and  the  feudal  system, 
which  had  just  obtained  a  firm  foothold  in  Europe,  was  bringing  forth  its 
bitter  first  fruits  —  of  anarchy,  petty  civil  wars,  and  bloodshed.  St.  Peter 
Damian  ‘  draws  a  graphic  picture  of  the  manner  in  which  the  feudal 
chieftains  robbed  one  another,  and  then  recklessly  “  set  fire  to  the  cottage 
of  the  poor  laborer.”  And  Gregory  VII.,  in  many  of  his  epistles,  weeps 
over  the  murders  and  confusion  of  his  time,  calling  it  appropriately  “  the 

AGE  OF  IRON.” 

In  this  distracted  condition  of  things,  only  one  power  was  universally 
acknowledged  and  respected  —  that  of  the  Church,  and  of  its  visible  head, 
the  Sovereign  Pontiff.  And  we  are  not  to  be  surprised  at  seeing  princes 
often  invoking  this  power  whenever  they  got  into  difficulties  with  their 
subjects,  or  with  one  another.  Nor  was  this  always  a  mere  mark  of 
respect  to  the  holy  see  —  it  was  oftener  a  prudential  measure  for  their  own 
security.  When,  by  taking  the  oath  of  fealty  to  the  Pope,  they  became 
the  feudal  subjects  of  the  holy  see,  they  had  a  right  to  expect  from  it 
protection  against  foreign  invasion  of  their  kingdom  or  domestic  usurpation 
of  their  throne.  Thus,  in  return  for  a  fealty,  which  included  chiefly 
spiritual  obedience  to  the  Pope,  with  a  very  small  annual  offering  to  the 
papal  treasury,  they  often  received  from  the  holy  see  the  most  substantial 
favors.  Any  one  who  recklessly  invaded  a  state  thus  placed  under  the 

protection  of  St.  Peter,”  after  having  been  admonished  to  desist, 
incurred,  if  he  persisted,  the  sentence  of  excommunication. 

Such  being  the  case,  we  are  not  astonished  that  kings  and  princes  in 
those  troubled  times  often  placed  their  crowns  at  the  Pontiff’s  feet.  Thus 
Demetrius,  king  of  Russia,  sent  his  son  all  the  way  to  Rome  to  implore  ^ 
Pope  Gregory  VII.,  to  receive  his  kingdom  as  a  fief  of  the  holy  see  ;  and 
Gregory  in  his  answer,^  seems  to  grant  his  request  with  some  reluctance, 
and  requires  of  him  what  was  usually  required  in  such  cases,  that  he 
should  promise  to  assist  his  liege  sovereign,  (the  holy  see)  ”  in  all  things 
just”  Many  kings  in  dying  left  their  kingdoms  under  the  protection  of 
the  Pope  ;  and  whenever  a  powerful  baron  or  neighboring  prince  sought 
to  violate  this  testamentary  disposition,  to  the  prejudice  of  the  infant  heir, 
the  Pope  interposed,  as  in  the  case  of  Vezelin,''  who  attempted  to  usurp  the 

1  Ep.  i,  15,  supra  cit. 

8  Ibid. 

S2 


14 


2  “  Devoti.s  precibu.s.”  (Kp.  ii,74.) 
4  See  St.  Uregory,  VII.  Ep,  Tii,  4. 


162 


AGE  OF  POPE  GREGORY  VII. 


llirone  of  Dalmatia.  Thus  also  Henry  III.,  left  his  infant  son  Henry  IV., 
under  the  guardianship  of  his  widow,  the  empress  Agnes,  and  of  Pope 
Victor  II. 

It  is  not  necessary  to  multiply  facts  to  prove  that  one  great  feature  of 
medieval  jurisprudence  was  the  express  or  tacit  acknowledgment  of  a 
kind  of  universal  protectorate  in  the  Roman  Pontiff.  We  find  even  the 
fierce  Robert  Guiscard  bowing  down  and  taking  the  oath  of  fealty  to  the 
holy  see.  It  is  proper  however  to  observe  here,  once  for  all,  that  the  oath 
of  feudal  vassalage  did  not  imply  unlimited  obedience  —  much  less  did  it 
enforce  a  slavish  submission  in  all  thino^s  to  the  will  of  the  lieo-e  lord. 
Feudal  allegiance  was  very  different  from  that  of  modern  times.  The 
former  was  peculiar  to  the  middle  ages,  and  its  duties  were  few  and  clearly 
marked,  requiring  at  the  same  time  as  a  condition  sine  qua  non,  the 
compliance  with  certain  correlative  duties  on  the  part  of  him  to  whom  the 
oath  was  taken. 

Gregory  could  not  hope  to  carry  out  his  plan  for  reforming  the  Church, 
without  the  co-operation  of  temporal  princes.  From  many  of  them  he  had 
reason  to  expect  the  most  determined  opposition.  Hence,  it  is  not  at  all 
surprising,  that,  intent  upon  one  great  idea,  he  sought,  from  the  very 
commencement  of  his  pontificate,  to  rally  around  him  the  princes  of  the 
•earth.  This  will  explain  to  us  his  course  of  conduct  in  regard  to  Dalmatia, 
Hungary,  Sardinia,  and  part  of  Spain,  which,  in  various  letters,  he  souglit 
to  prove,  to  have  been  in  former  times  feudal  dependencies  of  the  holy 
see.  We  read  of  no  resistance  to  his  claims  in  any  of  these  countries, 
which  proves  that  they  were  well  founded,  and  that  the  documents  he 
alleged  where  genuine.  This  should  put  to  shame  those  maligners  of  the 
sainted  Pontiff,  who  would  fain  persuade  us,  that  he  forged  documents  to 
suit  his  own  purposes !  !  To  prove,  that  the  princes  and  people  of  the 
middle  ages  were  not  advocates  of  passive  obedience,  even  to  the  Pope, 
particularly  where  temporal  matters  were  concerned,  we  may  adduce  the 
refusal  by  William  the  Conqueror,  to  take  tlie  oath  of  fealty  to  Gregory. 
His  answer  to  the  Pontiff  is  brief,  blunt,  and  characteristic  of  the  Norman  : 
yet  even  he,  while  positively  refusing  to  take  the  oath,  says  nothing  in  his 
answer  to  impugn  the  motives  of  Gregory.'  He  had  been  the  early 
-favorite  of  Gregory,  who  had  extolled  him  as  a  model  of  princes  ;  ^  and  on 
his  refusal  to  take  the  oath,  the  Pontiff  in  his  letter  to  his  Eno-lish  leo-ate 
Humbert,  only  complains  of  the  bluntness  of  the  English  monarch,  and  of 
his  refusal  to  suffer  the  English  bishops  to  visit  Rome.  This  last  fact  will 
peibaps  explain  to  us  liis  motive  for  endeavoring  to  induce  William  to  take 
tlie  oath. 

Tfiose  who  would  charge  Gregory  with  motives  of  mere  worldly 
ambition,  have  not  learned  the  first  elements  of  his  character.  Had 
worldly  grandeur  been  his  object,  why  did  he  not  obtain  it,  as  he  certainly 
•could  have  done  ?  Why  did  he  not  doff  his  humble  and  coarse  apparel, 
and  clothe  himself  in  the  “  soft  garments  of  kings  ?  ”  Why  did  he  not 

1  S««  bifl  answer  tx  the  Pontiff  in  Voi^t,  vol.  ii,  p.  330,  note.  2  See  Voigt,  vol.  i,  p.  425. 


THE  DEPOSING  POWER. 


16S 


keep  up  a  splendid  court,  and  live  luxuriously  in  the  midst  of  earthly 
pomp  and  display  ?  Why  did  he  not  die  a  great  temporal  prince,  instead 
of  a  poor  exile  at  Salerno  ?  Ambition,  forsooth  !  Nothing  was  more 
foreign  from  his  mind  and  heart  than  ambition.  All  his  letters  breathe  a 
higher  spirit ;  all  his  acts  imply  much  higher  motives.  He  was  not  a 
man  to  swerve  one  iota  from  the  plain  path  of  duty,  for  all  the  kingdoms 
of  the  world!  “I  would  rather,”  says  he,  “undergo  death  for  your 
salvation,  than  obtain  the  whole  world,  to  your  spiritual  ruin.  For  I 

fear  God,  and  therefore  value  but  little  the  pride  and  pleasures  of  the 
world.* 

2.  Much  has  been  written  of  the  Pontifl’’s  long  and  painful  struggle  with 
Henry  IV.  of  Germany ;  but  those  who  have  taken  occasion  from  it  to 
cast  all  the  blame  on  Gregory,  betray  great  ignorance  of  the  history  of 
that  remarkable  contest.  In  the  first  place,  who  was  Henry,  and  what 
was  his  character?  He  was  the  most  powerful  sovereign  of  his  day,  ^•nd 
his  vast  empire  extended  over  more  than  half  of  Europe.  His  influence 
was  immense  for  good  or  for  evil.  He  was  in  his  twenty-third  year,  >yhen 
Gregory  was  raised  to  the  pontificate.  His  many  natural  good  qualitiea 
had  been  almost  destroyed  by  a  vicious  education  from  his  earliest  youth — 
the  stream  of  his  existence  had  been  tainted  in  its  very  source.  He  had 
given  into  the  most  criminal  excesses  from  the  time  he  had  first  mounted 
the  throne,  and  from'a  confirmed  debauchee,  had  become  the  most  hemtless 
and  cruel  of  men.  For  his  criminal  excesses,  and  his  shameful  sale  of 
bishoprics  and  abbeys,  he  had  been  already  summoned  to  appear  before 
the  holy  see,  in  the  last  year  of  Pope  Alexander  H.^  This  summons  had 
no  other  effect  upon  the  dissolute  young  king,  than  to  cause  him  to  enter 
momentarily  into  himself :  but  on  the  death  of  Alexander,  his  e^ccesses 
became  more  enormous  and  insufferable  than  ever.  He  no  longer 
observed  any  bounds.  His  court  resembled  more  the  seraglio  of  a 
Turkish  sultan,  than  the  residence  of  a  Christian  prince. 

Perhaps  a  greater  monster  never  disgraced  a  throne.  To  obtain  the 
objects  of  his  criminal  passions,  he  stopped  at  nothing  —  husbands, 
fathers,  or  lovers  were  removed  by  assassination  1  He  knew  how  to  refine 
on  cruelty :  he  could  smile  on  you  one  day,  and  have  a  dagger  sent  to 
your  heart  tfie  next !  In  adversity,  he  was  the  meanest  of  sycophant^, 
and  the  most  crouchino- of  slaves  ;  look  at  him  at  the  diet  of  Tribur,^  when 
the  Saxons  were  victorious,  and  the  princes  of  the  empire  had  abandoned 
him  ;  look  at  him  also  at  the  castle  of  Canossa,  when  suing  for  reconciliation 
with  the  Church.  When  flushed  with  victory,  he  was  the  most  ferocious 
of  tyrants — crushing  and  trampling  in  the  dust  those  who  had  already 
submitted :  witness  the  horrible  manner  in  which  he  overran  Saxony, 
Thuringia,  and  Suabia,  as  most  graphically  painted  by  Voigt.  He  >vas 
as  perfidious,  as  he  was  cruel.  He  could  be  bound  neither  by  treaties* 
the  most  solemn,  nor  by  oaths  the  most  sacred.  In  one  word,  he  was  the 
Nero  of  the  middle  ages,  and  his  cotemporaries  gave  him  this  title.  All 


1  Ep.  Ti.  1, 


2  See  Voigt.  Tol.  i.  p.  23. 


3  Ibid,  Tol.  ii,  168-9. 


164 


AGE  OF  POPE  GREGORY  VII. 


these  charges  could  be  substantiated  by  facts  almost  innumerable  from 
M.  Voigt,  were  it  deemed  necessary. 

Such  was  the  monster  with  whom  Gregory  had  to  deal.  He  could  not 
escape  a  contest  with  such  a  man,  without  sacrificing  his  most  sacred 
duty.  For,  in  addition  to  Henry’s  private  and  political  crimes,  he  made 
a  regular  traffic  of  the  bishoprics  and  abbeys,  intruding  into  them  the 
most  unworthy  subjects  ;  thus  deluging  the  church  with  a  flood  of 
scandals.  He  would  sell  a  bishopric  to  one,  and  if  another  subsequently 
offered  more,  he  would  have  the  former  deposed  as  simoniacal,  and  bestow 
the  investiture  upon  the  latter  !  By  this  abuse,  some  of  the  principal 
churches  had  two,  and  that  of  Milan,  had  three  bishops  at  one  time  ! 
Thus  schisms  were  added  to  the  other  evils  of  the  Church. 

How  did  Gregory  deport  himself  in  his  controversy  with  Henry  ?  The 
limits  of  this  article  will  not  allow  more  than  a  very  brief  expose  of  the 
various  stages  of  that  contest ;  and  those  who  may  wish  a  fuller  account 
of  it,  are  referred  to  the  luminous  work  of  M.  Voigt.  We  will  endeavor 
to  present  in  order  the  various  facts  of  the  case,  scattered  through  the 
two  volumes  of  our  author  ;  and  we  think  it  will  be  seen,  that  a  simple 
unadorned  statement  of  facts  is  the  best  possible  vindication  of  Gregory’s 
course. 

1.  From  the  very  commencement  of  his  pontificate,  he  employed  every 
means  in  his  power  to  win  the  heart  of  Henry.  He  wrote  to  him  two 
letters  ‘  full  of  sweetness,  unction,  and  a  divine  eloquence,  in  which  he 
appealed  to  him  by  every  consideration  that  was  calculated  to  touch  his 
heart,  and  arouse  him  to  a  proper  sense  of  his  duty  :  in  both  of  them 
he  however  hinted  to  him,  that,  in  conformity  with  the  jurisprudence 
of  the  age,  the  right  to  the  crown  could  be  secured  to  liim,  ordy  on 
condition  “  of  his  governing  according  to  the  law  of  God,  and  pro¬ 
tecting  the  liberty  of  his  holy  Church.”  To  his  own  efforts,  his  influence 
added  those  of  Henry’s  mother,  the  pious  Empress  Agnes,  and  of  the 
Countesses  Beatrix  and  Matilda,  his  (Henry’s)  relatives  ;  not  to  mention 
those  of  the  great  and  good  Anno,  archbiship  of  Cologne. 

2.  When  Henry,  notwithstanding  the  hopes  with  which  his  answer  had 
at  first  inspired  Gregory,  still  continued  in  his  evil  courses,  the  latter  did 
not  immediately  excommunicate  him.  He  proceeded  slowly  and  cautiously. 
His  object  throughout  seems  to  have  been  to  correct,  not  to  crush  Henry. 
He  first  excommunicated  the  unworthy  bishops  who  had  purchased  their 
sees  from  him  ;  then  five  of  his  evil  counsellors  :  hoping  that  he  would 
profit  by  these  unequivocal  demonstrations.  And  whenever  Henry  made 
the  least  show  of  repentance,  with  what  paternal  tenderness  did  not  the 
Pontiff’  felicitate  himP  About  this  time,  (A.  D.  1073),  Henry  wrote 
him  a  most  submissive  and  hypocritical  letter ;  ^  and  though  Gregory 
saw  through  the  deceit,  and  knew  well  that  Henry’s  difficult  political 

1  See  them  in  Voigt,  vol  i,  407-8  Mr.  Voigt  thinks  that  these  letters  are  master  pieces  of  pru 
denceand  eloquence.  In  general,  all  the  epistles  of  Gregory  breathe  sentiments  fresh  from  a  hear^ 
warmed  by  dirine  charity. 

2  See  his  Ep.  iii,  3. 


3  Voigt,  Tol.,  i  p.  281. 


165 


THE  DEPOSING  POWEPt. 

position  alone  had  prompted  the  letter,  yet  with  what  sweetness  did  he 
not  ans^ver  this  letter  ! 

3.  Nearly  two  years  later,  in  1075,  occurred  the  infamous  plot  of 
Cencius,  and  the  outrage  upon  Gregory’s  person,  alluded  to  above.  The 
Pontiff  had  every  reason  to  believe,  that  Henry  and  Guibert,  archbishop 
of  Ravenna,  were  at  the  head  of  this  plot ;  and  yet  he  forbore.  He  does 
not  even  allude  to  it  in  any  of  his  controversies  with  Henry  ! 

4.  In  the  same  year,  1075,  the  brave  Saxons,  after  a  noble  struggle 
against  tyranny,  submitted  to  Henry,  on  the  faith  of  a  solemn  treaty  at 
Gerstungen,  in  which  he  promised  to  protect  their  property,  and  the 
liberty  and  rights  of  their  princes. ‘  Henry  violated  his  solemn  oaths,  and 
trampled  the  brave  Saxons  in  the  dust.  Crushed  and  bleeding,  they 
appealed  to  the  Pope  for  protection.  The  “holy  see,”  says  Mr.  Voigt,^ 
“  was  the  only  tribunal,  which  could  set  any  limits  to  imjoerial  despotism, 
as  a  second  defender  of  humanity ^  He  might  have  said,  that  it  was  the 
first,  and,  in  many  cases,  the  only  defender  of  humanity,  of  human  liberty 
and  rights.  In  those  times  of  anarchy  and  confusion,  to  whom  could  the 
oppressed  cry,  but  to  the  common  father  of  Christians  ?  Could  Gregory 
be  indifferent  to  their  cry  for  relief?  Could  he  do  otherwise  than  hear 
their  appeal,  listen  to  their  complaints,  and  endeavor  to  redress  their 
wrongs  ?  Henry  himself  had  also  appealed  to  the  holy  see  against  the 
Saxons  so  that  Gregory  saw  both  pai*ties  appealing  to  him  to  settle  their 
quarrel.  By  the  fact,  he  was  virtually  chosen  arbitrator.  .  Who  can  then 
blame  him  for  taking  cognizance  of  the  cause,  and  for  deciding  in  -  it 
according  to  justice  ?  Would  not  posterity  have  censured  him,  had  he 
neglected  the  appeal,  thus  solemnly  interposed  ?  At  the  instance  of 
Rodolph,  duke  of  Suabia,  and  of  other  German  princes,  Gregory  had  been 
induced''  nearly  two  years  previously,  in  1073-4,  to  act  as  mediator  between 
Henry  and  the  rebellious  Saxons.  He  had  accepted  the  office,  and  had 
written  a  most  eloquent  letter^  to  many  bishops  and  princes  of  Germany, 
imploring  them  to  use  their  influence  to  stop  the  effusion  of  blood,  until 
the  difficulties  could  be  amicably  adjusted.  But  amidst  the  din  of  arms, 
this  voice  had  not  been  heard.  About  the  same  time,  Henry  had  sent 
ambassadors  to  Rome  to  complain  of  the  Saxons  so  that  he  may  be  said 
to  have  appealed  twice  to  the  holy  see.  Gregory  therefore  had  a  right  to 
interfere  in  the  political  affairs  of  Germany,  under  each  of  two  characters- - 
that  of  mediator,  and  that  of  arbitrator.  Why  have  his  enemies  concealed 
these  facts  ? 

5.  And  who  were  the  Saxons,  whose  cause  Gregory  espoused?  They 
were  the  oppressed  :  they  were  the  advocates  of  liberty!  The  decision  of 
Gregory  against  Henry  was  a  blow  aimed  at  tyranny,  and  sti-uck  for  the 
rights  of  the  people.  If  ever  a  people  deserved  liberty,  the  Saxons 
merited  that  boon.  Instead  of  being  the  fierce  savages  that  some 

1  Voigt,  vol.  ii,  p  78.  2  Vol.  ii,  p.  98.  3  Ibid,  ii,  p.  97. 

4  Ibid.  vol.  i,  p.  360.  5  Ep.  i,  39. 

6  Ibid,  vol.  i,  p.  381.  Where  he  cites  lor  his  authority,  his  favorite  historian  Lambert. 


•3 


166 


AGE  OF  POPE  GREGORY  VI 1. 


historians  would  fain  represent  them,  they  were  remarkable  for  their 
accurate  perception  of  right  and  justice,  and  for  their  firm,  yet  moderate 
advocacy  of  their  liberties.  At  the  famous  convention  of  the  Saxon 
people  at  Nockmeslove,  in  1073',  Otto  of  Nordheim  made  a  speech, 
which  for  solid  reasoning,  and  moving  eloquence,  perhaps  equals  any 
effort  of  our  own  Patrick  Henry.*  Its  stirring  accents  rang  throughout 
all  Saxony,  and  its  effect  was  not  only  to  thrill  every  bosom,  but  to  cause 
the  war  cry  “  To  arms  !  to  arms/*’’  to  be  heard  from  every  valley  and 
hill-top  !  To  show  in  what  light  the  oath  of  fealty  to  the  king  was 
viewed  in  those  days,  we  will  present  the  following  extract  from  Otto’s 
speech :  — 

“  Perhaps  you  hesitate  to  break  the  oath  you  have  token  to  the  king, 
because  you  are  Christians  !  What  !  To  the  king  !  So  long  as  he  was 
king  for  me  —  so  long  as  he  showed  himself  such,  I  liave  scrupulously 

observed  the  oath  I  had  token  :  since  he  has  ceased  to  act  like  a  kinu', 

•  • 

and  to  discharge  the  duties  of  a  king,  I  owe  him  fealty  no  longer. 
Courafre  then!  We  do  not  march  against  the  kinir.  No — but  against 

O  o  o  o 

the  enemy  of  our  liberty  ;  against  the  enemy  of  our  country,  Ac.” 

Tliis  reasoning  only  alleges  a  principle  generally  received  in  the  middle 
ages  :  that  obedience  and  'protection  are  correlative  terms,  and  that  the 
former  ceases  to  be  obligatory,  where  the  latter  is  wanting.^  According 
to  this  principle,  Henry  could  have  been  deposed  without  the  sanction 
of  the  Pope  ;  and  in  fact  the  princes  of  the  empire  seriously  thought 
of  doing  so  before  Gregory  had  spoken.  The  Saxons,  in  appealing 
to  the  Pope,  had  not  only  expressly  recognized  in  him  the  power  of 
deposing  princes,  but  had  said,  that  the  German  empire  was  a  fief  of 
the  holy  see.^  In  fine,  Gregory,  while  declaring  under  all  the  circura^ 
stances,  that  the  Saxons  were  absolved  from  their  oath  of  allegiance  to 
Henry,  did  precisely  what  every  American  and  every  lover  of  liberty 
would  have  done. 

6.  In  answer  to  the  appeal  of.  the  Saxons,  Gregory  wrote  a  letter  to 
Henry,  in  which,  after  having  employed  all  his  eloquence  to  reclaim 
him,  he  threatened  him  with  excommunication,  unless  he  repented  and 
reformed,"*  Flushed  with  his  recent  victory  over  the  Saxons,  Henry 
despised  the  admonitions  of  the  Pontiff.  He  assembled  a  conventicle  at 
Worms,  in  1075,  which  attempted  to  depose  Gregory,  and  to  set  up 
Guibert,  archbishop  of  Ravenna,  in  his  stead.®  He  directed  two  insolent 
letters  to  the  P*oman  people  and  to  the  Pope,  to  announce  to  them  the 
decision  of  the  mock  council :  and  he  sent  Rolando,  a  secret  emissary,  to 
insult  the  Pontiff  to  his  face  in  the  council  which  he  was  to  open  in  Rome. 

1  IVhofcTcr  will  read  the  portion  of  this  famous  speech,  given  us  by  Mr.  Voigt,  (vol.  i,  p.  288-9, 
&c.)  will  scarcely  think  this  an  exaggeration.  If  some  one  would  take  the  trouble  to  collect,  togeth¬ 
er  the  various  famous  speeches  of  the  middle  ages,  and  present  them  in  a  good  English  dress,  he 
would  add  to  the  stock  of  medieval  literature.  This  speech,  two  or  tl>ree  of  Gregory  before  Roman 
councils,  and  one  of  Urban  II.  at  the  council  of  Cleremont  in  1095,  might  belong  to  the  collection. 

2  See  deci.'ion  of  a  council  of  Toledo  referred  to  by  Guizot — Lectures,  &c.,  where  this  principle 
is  connected  with  the  etymology  of  the  word  rex,  recte. 

3  See  Voigt.,  vol.  ii,  p.  98.  4  Ibid,  p.  103. 


6  Ibid,  p.  107. 


4 


THE  DEPOSING  POWER. 


167 


Gregory  screened  the  envoy  from  the  pnnisliment  which  his  insolence 
provoked  :  he  read  the  insulting  documents  himself  to  the  council,  with 
the  utmost  sang  froid ;  and,  in  order  to  let  the  excitement  subside,  he 
adjourned  the  session  until  the  next  day.  He  then  calmly  explained,  to 
the  one  hundred  and  ten  assembled  bishops,  the  whole  of  his  past  relations 
with  Henry,  and  his  wish  to  secure  the  freedom  and  peace  of  the  Church. 
It  was  only  at  the  most  urgent  request  of  the  council,  that  he  consented 
to  excommunicate  Henry.' 

7.  It  is  manifest,  that,  in  the  whole  proceeding,  Gregory  wished  ta‘ 
correct,  and  not  to  degrade  Henry  :  hence,  in  a  letter  to  the  princes  and 
bishops  of  Germany,  he  promised  to  readmit  him  on  repentance.'' 

8.  It  was  a  law  of  the  German  empire,  that  if  a  prince  remained  under 
excommunication  for  one  year,  he  forfeited  his  crown. ^  Hence  it  was, 
that  Henry  was  in  so  much  haste  to  be  absolved  by  Gregory  at  Canossa. 

9.  If  Gregory  deposed  Henry,  the  consent  of  princes  and  people  at  that, 
time  secured  to  him  the  right  to  do  so.  This  is  so  certain,  that  it  is  not 
deemed  necessary  to  adduce  facts  to  prove  it.  Voigt  admits  it ; ''  and  his 
translator  proves  it  by  incontestable  cotemporary  documents.®  Gregory 
then  usurped  nothing ;  —  he  is  fully  borne  out  by  the  spirit  and  the' 
jurisprudence  of  his  age.^ 

10.  Finally,  though  Henry  was  not  sincere  in  obtaining  absolution 
from  the  excommunication  at  Canossa  ;  thoug^h  in  less  than  fifteen  davs 
thereafter  he  broke  all  his  solemn  oaths ;  yet  Gregory  abstained  for  nearly 
four  years  from  renewing  the  excommunication.  His  legates  in  Germany 
went  beyond  their  instructions,  when,  at  the  diet  of  Forcheim  in  1077, 
ihey  approved  of  the  election  of  Rodolph.  He  often  lamented  this 
imprudent  step.’'  He  viewed  it  as  premature,  and  calculated  to  foment, 
rather  than  to  remedy  the  troubles  of  Germany  and  of  the  Church ;  and 
he  declares,  that  “he  would  rather  suffer  death,  if  necessary,  than  be  the 
cause  of  the  troubles  of  the  Church.”  ®  He  labored  incessantly  to  heal 
the  divisions  of  Germany,  and  to  stop  the  effusion  of'  blood ;  council  after 
council  he  assembled  in  Rome  ;  diet  after  diet  he  appointed  to  be  held  in 
Germany,  for  the  final  settlement  of  the  matter.  But  Henry  thwarted  all 
his  measures;  so  far  from  seeking,  he  was  afraid  of  that  justice  which 
Gregory  wished  to  have  meted  out  to  him.  He,  then — and  not  Gregory — 
was  responsible  for  the  protracted  civil  war  in  Germany. 

Such  was  Gregory  VII.,  as  shown  by  his  acts.  Henry  triumphed  over 

1  See  Voigt,  vol.  ii,  p.  115,  et  seq.  2  Ibid,  p.  129.  3  Ibid,  p.  137. 

4  Ibid,  p  214.  5  See  his  introduction,  p.  lix.  et  seq. 

6  See  a,  work  by  Gosselin,  published  in  Paris,  1829,  entitled,  ‘‘  Pouvoir  des  I'apes,  sur  les  eoure- 
rains,  au  Moyen  Age.”  See  also  the  admirable  work  of  Count  de  Maistre,  “  Du  Pape.”  Volcairo 
also  admits  this. 

7  This  fact  does  not  appear  to  be  generally  known.  Even  Feller  (Diet.  Hist.  Art.  Greg.  VTI.) 
ascribes  the  election  of  Ilodolph  to  Gregory:  and  this  too,  in  the  face  of  many  of  the  PoiitifTs 
letters,  and  of  his  solemn  declaration  to  the  contrary  at  the  Roman  council  held  in  1080!  lie  also 
asserts,  that  Gregory  excommunicated  Henry  again,  immediately  after  their  reconciliation  at  Canossa 
In  1076:  whereas,  though  his  legates  in  Germany  renewed  the  excommunication  in  1077,  yet  the 
Pontiff  himself  abstained  from  doing  so  until  1080. 

8  Ep.  iv,  24. 


168 


> 


AGE  OF  POPE  GPvEGORY  VII. 

him  for  a  time  ;  and  he  died  an  exile  ;  but  he  died  as  he  had  lived  — 
virtuous,  calm,  unshaken,  and  happy.  Henry  died,  reduced  to  the  lowest 
degradation,  abandoned  by  all  and  despised  by  all,  even  by  his  own  sons, 
who  had  successfully  carried  on  a  civil  war  against  him.  Gregory  was 
“  the  Hercules  of  the  middle  ages  :  he  enchained  monsters,  crushed  the 
hydra  of  feudalism,  saved  Europe  from  barbarism,  and  what  is  more 
beautiful  still,  he  illustrated  Christian  society  by  his  virtues.”  ' 

An  able  Protestant  writer  appreciates  his  noble  courage,  as  well  as 
the  lofty  motives  which  animated  it,  in  the  following  eloquent  language : 

Had  Hildebrand’s  sick  heart  failed  him  then,  it  would  not  have  been 
strange  ;  but  he  looked  at  his  crucifix,  at  the  image  of  his  forsaken, 
dying,  and  yet  victorious  Master,  and  grew  strong ;  for  that  told  him 
how  little  the  final  triumph  of  a  moral  truth  can  be  judged  of  from 
immediate  success  or  failure.  ‘And  I,  too,’  he  murmured  to  himself, 
in  words  which,  a  few  weeks  later,  were  the  last  upon  his  lips,  ‘  And  I, 
too,  have  loved  justice  and  hated  iniquity,  and  I  die  an  exile.’  The 
future  was  hidden  to  him  ;  but’  he  knew  that  God  ruled,  that  the  great 
thoughts,  which  by  his  struggles  he  had  made  familiar  to  man,  rested 
not  on  his  strength,  but  on  an  eternal  basis  ;  and  tliat,  though  he  was 
passing  away,  the  Omnipotent  remained  as  tJie  world’s  ruler;  —  he  knew 
that  he  had  sown  the  seed,  and  that  God  would  give  the  harvest.”^ 

We  conclude  with  the  last  words  of  M.  Voigt’s  history  : 

“  It  is  difficult  to  bestow  on  him  exaggerated  eulogy  :  for  he  has  laid 
everywhere  the  foundation  of  a  solid  glory.  But  every  one  should  wish 
to  render  justice  to  whom  justice  is  due  ;  let  no  one  cast  a  stone  at  one 
who  is  innocent :  let  every  one  respect  and  honor  a  man  who  has  labored 
for  his  age,  with  views  so  grand  and  so  generous.  Let  him  who  is 
conscious  of  having  calumniaied  him,  re-enter  into  his  own  conscience.” 


1  Abbe  Jager,  Introd,  p.  xcix. 


2  North  Ausjerican  ReTieWj  1845. 


i 


IX.  THE  GREAT  SCHISM  OF  THE  WEST. 

ROME  AND  AVIGNON.* 


The  Reformers  before  the  IJeformation  —  Ronnechose  and  D’Aubignft  compared  —  The  former  as  an 
historian  —  Is  lie  ingenuous  or  fair?  —  Inaccuracies — Scope  of  his  work — The  Schism  a  fiery 
ordeal  for  the  Church  —  From  which  she  came  forth  unscathed  —  Scandals  to  be  expected  — 
Morality  of  the  Popes — Origin  of  the  Schism  —  The  i>apacy  ‘'stooping  to  conquer” — Contest 
between  Boniface  VIII.,  and  Philip  the  Fair — ■  I'lte  death  of  Boniface,  and  election  of  his  suc¬ 
cessor  —  Intrigues  of  Philip  —  The  Popes  reside  at  Avignon  —  Their  policy  —  Return  to  Rome  — 
Election  of  Urban  VI. —  Defection  of  Cardinals  —  They  set  up  Clement  VII.  — Who  moves  to 
Avignon  —  Political  ambition  of  princes — ‘The  evil  and  the  remedy  come  from  France — Univer¬ 
sity  of  I'aris  —  Council  of  Pisa  —  And  of  Constance — Election  of  Martin  V.  —  End  of  the 
Schism  —  Remarks — Triuinph  of  the  Church  —  Relation  of  tlie  Pope  to  a  general  council 
—  Reforming  the  Church  ‘'in  its  head  and  members”— The  succession  not  interrupted  —  Two 
objections  answered  —  Church  emerged  from  the  Schism  stronger  than  ever  —  And  so  did  the 
papacy. 


We  suppose  it  was  the  shrewd  Irish  translator,  or  the  enterprising 
American  publishers,  who  prefixed  to  the  titlei-page  of  the  work  of  M. 
Bonnechose  the  additional  sentence,  “  An  introduction  to  ‘  D’Aubignc’s 
History  of  the  Reformation.’”  Whoever  did  it,  it  was  a  lucky  idea,  based 
on  a  proper  appreciation  of  the  qualities  and  relationship  of  the  two 
publications.  D’Aubigne  and  Bonnechose  are  evidently  of  a  kindred 
spirit  ;  they  are  a  par  nobile  fratrtim.  Both  are  filled  with  a  pious  horror 
of  Catholicity ;  both  can  find  nothing  good  in  the  lives,  character,  or 
motives  of  Popes,  cardinals,  or  bishops  ;  both,  we  apprehend,  are  thoroughly 
imbued  with  the  stern,  unyielding,  and  gloomy  spirit  of  Calvinism  ;  and 
both  have  earnestly  endeavored  to  infuse  their  own  dark  prejudices  into  the 
minds  of  others.  Both  write  with  great  spirit  and  vigor ;  both  have  a 
sufficient  smattering  of  learning  to  mislead  the  unlearned  and  unwary ; 
both  are  violent  and  unscrupulous  partisans.  In  fine,  both  are  disin¬ 
genuous,  and  both  deal  largely  in  sophistry  and  romance. 

But  we  consider  the  “Introduction”  a  far  more  able,  and,  therefore,  a 
far  more  dangerous  production,  than  the  work  itself  by  the  historian  “  of 
the  great  Reformation.”  D’Aubigne  is  a  religious  fanatic  and  an  historical 
romancer  ;  he  wholly  suppresses  at  least  one  half  of  the  evidence  properly 
belonging  to  his  subject,  and  greatly  perverts  the  other  half.  He  labors 
to  invest  his  heroes  with  the  romantic  interest  which  attaches  to  the 
personal  history  of  the  paladins  of  knight-errantry  ;  he  dragoons  them  into 


*An  Introduction  to  “  D’Aubigne’s  History  of  the  Reformation.”  The  Reformers 
before  the  Reformation.  'I'lie  fifteenth  century.  John  liuss  and  the  Council  of 
Constance.  By  Emile  de  Bonnechose,  librarian  of  the  kini^  of  France,  author  of 
‘•Hi.stoire  de  France,”  '•  Ilistoire  Sacree,”  &c.  'I'ranslated  from  the  French  by 
Campl)ell  McKetizie,  B.  A.,  Trinity  Colle<,%  Dublin,  Complete  in  one  volume,  Svo., 


pp.  199.  New  York 
T 


llarner  &  Brothers.  1844. 


169 


170 


THE  GREAT  SCHISM  OF  THE  WEST. 


the  ranks  of  saintship,  whether  they  will  or  not he  entirely  conceals  their 
many  gross  and  glaring  vices,  and  invents  incidents  and  anecdotes  to 
exhibit  their  superior  righteousness  ! 

This  is  so  notoriously  true,  that  an  able  Protestant  writer  in  the  Southern 
Quarterly  Review  freely  admits  “the  utter  futility  of  the  ‘History  of  the 
great  Reformation,’  as  a  text  book,  or  an  authority.”  He  adds,  with  what 
we  take  for  withering  sarcasm,  that  “  D’Aubigne  may  do  for  the  Sunday 
school,” — where  piety,  based  on  a  holy  hatred  of  Rome,  is  more  appre¬ 
ciated  than  truth, — “but  for  the  student,  the  scholar,  the  theologer,  the 
polemic,  he  is  utterly  useless  —  nay,  he  is  worse  than  useless  —  he  is 
positively  pernicious.”^ 

We  think  that  the  same  verdict  will  be  ultimately  rendered  by  all 
intelligent  men  on  the  historical  merits  of  M.  Bonnechose,  author  of  the 
book  with  the  somewhat  Hibernian  title  :  “  The  Reformers  before  the 
Reformation.”  Yet  this  must  be  the  work  of  time.  M.  Bonnechose  is,  as 
we  have  already  intimated,  a  very  different  man  from  M.  D’Aubigne.  He 
at  least  has  some  pretensions  to  be  an  historian.  He  has  evidently  examined 
the  original  authorities  ;  at  least  as  many  of  tliem,  as  he  deemed  necessary 
to  establish  and  illustrate  his  own  favorite  views  of  the  subject  which  he 
undertook  to  handle.  As  a  writer,  he  is  grave,  earnest,  and  often  eloquent. 
His  narrative  is  succinct  and  correct ;  and  its  interest  is  tolerably  .well 
sustained  to  the  end.  His  statements  and  explanations  of  facts  are 
ingenious  and  plausible  ;  he  is  not,  like  .D’Aubigne,  glaringly  inconsistent 
and  absurd  on  almost  every  page.  He  even  makes  an  occasional  admission 
in  favor  of  the  Popes  and  of  the  Catholic  Church,  when  the  evidence  is 
such  that  he  cannot  well  help  it :  but  even  then  he  qualities  the  admission ; 
and  you  are  almost  tempted  to  believe  that  he  makes  it,  as  much  with  a 
view  to  appear  impartial,  and  to  lure  on  his  readers  to  receive  implicitly 
his  other  statements,  as  through  a  sincere  love  of  truth. 

In  short,  to  refute  him,  a  man  must  travel  back  to  the  record  ;  he  must 
minutely  examine  and  thoroughly  sift  the  original  authorities ;  he  must 
verify  his  references  ;  must  see  whether  he  has  given  the  true  sense  of  the 
authors  he  quotes,  whether  he  garbles  passages,  whether  he  omits  portions 
of  the  testimony  which  would  prove  the  contrary  of  what  he  asserts  ;  in 
fine,  he  must  see  what  authors  he  quotes,  wiiat  is  their  weight  and  authority, 
what  influences  impelled  them  to  write,  and  liow  far  their  testimony  is  to 
be  relied  on.  Then  another  most  imporiant  consideration  must  not  be 
neglected  :  does  the  historian  quote  the  cotemporary  authors  who  wrote  on 
hath  sides,  or  does  he  confine  himself  almost  entirely  to  writers  on  one  side  ? 
If  the  former,  then  may  he  claim  the  palm  of  impartiality,  provided  he 
quote  honestly  and  fully  ;  if  the  latter,  he  is  a  thorough  partisan,  who  needs 
watching,  and  whose  word  you  may  rely  on  only  so  far  as,  by  your  own 
researches,  you  may  ascertain  it  to  be  founded  in  truth. 

Now,  we  don’t  profess  to  have  gone  through  all  the  patient  labor,  and 

1  Only  think  of  the  burly  friar,  Martin  Luther, —  tbe  knight  of  the  bottle,  and  the  hero  of  the 
Black  Eagle  tavern  of  Wittemberg  for  fifteen  years, —  being  a  saint ! 

2  Art.  VJI.  of  No  xiii  Oct.  1844. 


ROME  AND  AVIGNON.* 


171 


to  have  made  all  the  researches  just  indicated.  But  we  do  claim  to  have 
done  enough  in  the  premises  to  satisfy  our  own  minds,  and  to  be  able  tc 
convince  impartial  men,  that  M.  Bonnechose  is  any  thing  but  a  safe  or 
impartial  historian.  He  quotes  chiefly  on  one  side  only  ;  and  we  distinctly 
charge  him  with  garbling  his  own  authors,  in  more  instances  than  one. 
We  have  examined  the  originals,  and  we  speak  advisedly  on  the  subject. 

We  will,  at  present,  indicate  but  two  instances  of  this  inexcusable  disin¬ 
genuousness.  The  first  occurs  on  page  12,  in  the  quotation  from  a  work 
of  Nicholas  de  Clemangis,*  the  secretary  of  Clement  VII.,  the  claimant  of 
the  papacy  at  Avignon ;  the  other  on  page  60,  in  the  translation  of  the 
well  known  safe  conduct  given  by  the  emperor  Sigismund  to  John  Huss. 

In  both  cases,  he  gives  the  passages  as  continuous  ;  and  yet,  what  is  your 
surprise  at  finding,  on  turning  to  the  originals,  that  he  has  left  out  whole 
lines  and  phrases,  materially  affecting  and  even  changing  the  sense !  Can 
a  man  who  does  this  be  relied  on  as  a  safe  guide  ? 

But  this  is  not  all.  Only  think  of  a  grave  historian,  in  the  nineteenth 
century,  writing  a  book,  too,  which  he  wishes  to  be  received  as  veracious 
history, —  of  a  librarian  of  the  French  king,  who  ought  surely  to  have 
known  better, —  seriously  and  solemnly  quoting  as  authority  Fox,^  the 
notorious  English  martyrologist ;  the  man  who  was  convicted  of  having 
put  down,  in  his  canting  book,  the  names  of  many  martyred  victims  of 
papal  cruelty,  who,  however,  survived  the  publication  of  his  work,  and 
afterwards  openly  declared  that  they  were  not  dead  at  all,  but  still  living 
in  spite  of  Fox’s  zeal  against  popery!  Only  think  of  his  actually  praising 
this  same  notorious  Fox,  and  ranking  him  with  the  Bollandists  ! 

But  armin.  M.  Bonnechose  is  often  as  inaccurate  in  his  statement  of 

O 

important  facts,  as  he  is  unsafe  in  his  authorities,  and  loose  in  his  manner 
of  quoting  them.  We  can,  at  present,  stop  to  furnish  but  one  instance  of 
this  :  many  others  will  come  up  in  the  sequel.  He  flippantly  tells  us  that, 
“in  three  months  after  his  (Urban  VI.,)  elevation  to  the  popedom,  the 
very  persons  that  had  chosen  him  protested  against  his  election.” 

Now,  if  this  means,  as  the  sequel  would  seem  to  imply,  that,  after  l/iree  ^ 
months,  the  cardinals  proceeded  to  a  new  election,  it  is  wholly  unfounded 
in  fact.  Urban  VI.,  was  elected  at  Rome  on  the  8th  day  of  April,  1378  ; 
and  Clement  VII.  was  chosen  at  Fondi  on  the  20th  of  September  of  the 
same  year,  making  the  interval  between  the  two  elections  months  and 

1  He  does  not,  lell  us  even  from  what  work  of  Clemangis  or  Clamengis  he  quotes.  Nor  does  ha 
furnisii  any  niarginal  reference.  Tlie  passage  is  found  entire  in  llardt— Council.  Constant ,  C.  42,  p.  46 
of  tom,  i,  part  111.  in  a  work  ascribed  to  Clemangis,  entitled,  De  corrupto  Ecclesias  Siaiu  ;  and.  at  a  later 
period,  De  Knina  Eccle.-iae  The  work  was,  in  all  probability,  not  written  Clemangis  at  all,  but 
about  a  centnrv  after  his  death,  either  by  Bishop  John  de  Chlem  of  Poland,  or  by  another  John  de 
Chiem.see  in  Bavaria.  The  first  edition  of  it  appeared  in  l.aiid.shut  in  Bavaria,  in  1.524.  This 
consideration  up.-ets  the  whole  authority  of  the  book  as  a  cotemporary  history  ;  and  yet  our  author 
breathes  not  a  syllable  of  ail  this  lie  could  garble  the  book,  but  could  not  find  space  to  tell  hia 
readers  that  its  authenticity  i.«,  at  best,  very  question.able. 

2  P.  193  Note  He  depends  on  fox  for  the  articles  of  John  IIuss  condemned  in  the  council  of 
Constance!  Why  not  quote  them  at  once  from  the  acts  of  the  council?  Was  Fox  a  cotemporary 
historian?  On  turning  to  the  acts  of  the  council,  it  will  be  perceived  that  Fox  has  cruelly  misled 
him,  both  as  to  the  order  and  the  meaning  of  the  propositions  condemned. 

3  Preface  p.  1.  4  Historical  Introduction,  p.  11. 


172 


THE  GR.  EAT  SCHISM  OF  THE  WEST. 


twelve  lays.  If  the  assertion  about  the  months  mean  only  to  mark 
the  time  of  departure  of  the  cardinals  from  Rome  to  Anagni,  (not  Agnani, 
as  he  writes  it),  it  is  still  wrong.  The  proclamation  of  the  cardinals 
assembled  at  Anagni,  containing  the  protest  alluded  to,  is  dated  August 
9,  1^378, /owr  months  and  one  day  after  the  election  of  Urban  VI.  Nor 
let  us  be  told  that  this  is  a  very  trifling  fault,  and  that,  in  animadverting 
on  it,  we  are  hypercritical.  The  precise  time  intervening  between  the  two 
elections  is  very  important,  in  settling  the  relative  claims  to  the  papacy  of 
the  two  aspirants  ;  and  surely  a  grave  historian,  who  pretends  to  write  a 
veridical  history,  should  have  been  more  exact. 

These  are  a  few,  out  of  the  many  reasons,  which  have  led  us  to  the 
conclusion  that  M.  Bonnechose  is  not  a  Safe  historian,  and  that  his  asser 
tions  need  some  confirmation  other  than  his  own  bare  word.  But  the 
chief  fault  we  have  to  find  with  him,  is  his  glaring  partiality,  and  his  open 
hostility  to  the  creed  and  persons  of  those  who  figure  most  conspicuously 
in  his  history.  He  evidently  gloats  over  the  evils  and  disorders  attending 
the  great  papal  Schism  :  he  has  no  sympathies  to  bestow  upon  a  suffering 
•  and  agonized  Church,  torn  by  schism  within,  and  fiercely  assailed  by 
heresy  from  without :  the  sufferings  of  John  Huss,  of  Jerome  of  Prague, 
and  of  the  Hussites,  seem  to  have  engrossed  all  his  sympathies,  and  to 
have  exhausted  his  whole  stock  of  humanity.  In  a  word,  he  exhibits  all 
the  shades,  with  scarcely  any  of  the  lights  of  the  picture.  This  is  the 
greatest  defect  of  the  book. 

We  wish  from  our  heart  it  had  been  otherwise.  We  are  heartily  tired 
of  seeing  history,  which  should  be  the  noble  and  fearless  witness  of  the 
truth,  prostituted  to  the  vile  purposes  of  sectarian  strife,  and  engaged  in  a 
grand  conspiracy  against  the  truth.  We  wish  M.  Bonnechose  had 
approached  his  subject  with  a  mind  free  from  undue  prejudice,  and 
determined  to  ascertain  and  to  publish  the  truth  at  all  hazards.  We  wish 
he  had  been  true,  even  to  the  purpose  he  conceived  in  undertaking  his 
work,  as  he  declares  it  in  the  preface 

“  This  work,  in  a  historical  point  of  view,  is  intended  to  make  known 
and  appreciated  the  great  religious  movement  which  took  place  a  century 
before  the  reformation  in  Europe.  It  embraces  a  period  of  seventy  years, 
which  elapsed  from  the  beginning  of  the  GREAT  SCHISM  of  the  WEST 
in  1378,  to  the  end  of  the  war  of  the  Hussites,  towards  the  middle  of  the 
following  century.  The  principal  doctrines  which  divided  Europe  during 
that  memorable  period  are  exposed  to  view  in  it ;  and  the  illustrious  men 
who  originated  and  defended  them  are  carefully  depicted.” 

The  plan  of  the  author  thus  embraced  the  history  of  the  Great  Schism, 
and  of  the  rise  and  progress  of  the  Hussites.  It  was  perhaps  the  most 
disastrous  period  in  Church  History.  Never,  since  the  days  of  the 
apostles,  had  so  many  evils  beset  the  Church  at  the  same  time,  and 
threatened  her  very  existence.  More  than  once  before,  her  peace  had 
Deen  disturbed  by  schism  ;  but  there  never  had  been  a  schism  so  appalling, 
of  so  long  continuance,  and  so  seemingly  incurable,  as  that  which  rent  her 

1  Page  7. 


ROME  AND  AVIGNON. 


173 


bosom  during  the  last  quarter  of  the  fourteenth,  and  the  first  quarter  of  the 
fifteenth  century,  Never  had  she  passed  through  an  ordeal  so  fiery; 
never  had  her  institutions  had  to  abide  so  severe  a  test.  To  add  to  her 
embarrassment,  a  fierce  and  truculent  heresy,  threatening  the  very 
foundations  of  all  society,  both  religious  and  political,  then  broke  out,  like 
a  terrific  storm,  threatening  to  leave  nothing  but  ruins  in  its  course. 

As  our  author  says,  it  was  truly  “  a  strange  period  and  fruitful  in 
storms,”  ‘  —  “an  unfortunate  period  when  a  spirit  of  boldness  and  violence 
agitated  all  classes  of  society,  and  produced  in  every  direction  sanguinary 
disorders.”^  We  may  almost  apply  to  it,  what  Tacitus  says  of  a  certain 
disastrous  era  in  Roman  history,  that  it  was  a  period  “  fertile  in  vicissitudes, 
atrocious  in  wars,  discordant  by  seditions;”  —  and  we  add  with  him,  in  a 
qualified  sense,  “  fierce  even  in  peace.”  ^ 

If  ever  the  Church  could  be  destroyed,  this  seemed  the  time  clearly 
marked  out  for  her  destruction.  If  ever  “  the  gates  of  hell  could  prevail 
over  her,”  this  seemed  to  be  the  period  chosen  for  their  triumph.  If  ever 
the  solemn  promises  of  Christ  were  to  go  unredeemed,  and  the  Church, 
His  spouse  “without  spot  or  wrinkle  or  blemish,”  “subject  to  Him  in  all 
things,”'' — a  spouse  whom  He  had  so  long  and  so  dearly  loved,  and  for  whom 
He  had  shed  the  last  drop  of  His  heart’s  purest  blood,  —  was  to  be  torn 
from  His  bosom,  and  to  be  rudely  insulted,  trodden  under  foot,  and  crushed 
by  the  nations,  —  now  seemed  to  have  arrived  that  time.  But  if  Christ’s 
love  could  not  fail ;  if  His  purpose  could  not  be  baffled  ;  if  His  promises 
could  not  be  falsified ;  then  might  the  bosom  of  this  cherished  spouse,  no 
matter  how  dark  the  clouds  which  overhung  her  pathway,  be  still  calm  in 
the  storm.  Amidst  all  her  sorrows,  she  might  still  hope,  even  against 
hope  ;  and  the  result  would  prove, — and  did  prove, —  that  she  hoped  not 
in  vain  ! 

We  care  not,  how  many  and  how  appalling  were  the  disorders  and 
dangers  which  then  threatened  the  Church  ;  we  care  not,  how  dark  may 
be  the  shades  of  the  picture  which  the  truth  of  history  may  compel  us  to 
draw  of  the  period  in  question  :  if  the  evils  had  been  a  hundred  fold 
worse  and  more  aggi-avated,  the  final  and  glorious  triumph  of  the  Church 
has  proved  that  she  is  indestructible  ;  —  indestructible  by  moral  disorder's 
reigning  in  her  midst,  but  never,  for  a  moment,  sanctioned  by  her 
authority, —  indestructible  by  human  passions, —  indestructible  by  here¬ 
sies, —  indestructible  by  causes  violently  rending  her  very  bOsom,  and 
which  would  certainly  have  inflicted  death,  had  she  been  at  all  mortal. 

We  hope  to  show,  as  we  progress,  that  we  are  not  afraid  of  the  truth, 
and  of  the  whole  truth.  We  are  not  surprised  at  scandals,  because  Christ 
foretold  that  they  should  come  ;  and  they  are  a  necessary  result  of  human 
depravity  combined  \vi  h  free  agency.  The  most  ardent  champion  of  th^ 
papacv  never  once  dreamed,  that  the  Roman  Pontiff  is  either  impeccable, 

1  P  117.  2  p.  37. 

3  Opiiiinm  casibus,  atrox  prccliis,  di.scor8  seditionibus,  ipsa  etiam  pace  scevuin.  Uist.  1.  i,  c.  il. 

4  Ephesians  ch.  r. 

T2 


174 


THE  GREAT  SCHISM  OF  THE  WEST. 


or  personally  infallible  in  his  private  capacity.  He  is  a  man  like  others, 
knowing  infirmity,  beset  with  temptations,  and  exposed  to  commit  sin. 
If  Peter  sinned,  we  need  not  be  surprised  tliat  a  few  of  his  successors  have 
followed  his  example.  If  one  of  the  twelve,  raised  under  the  very  eye  of 
the  blessed  Jesus,  and  imbued  from  His  lips  with  holy  doctrine,  became  a 
traitor  and  an  apostate,  it  is  not  at  all  surprising  that  a  few  Popes  should 
likewise  have  fallen  into  vice.  Every  impartial  man,  no  matter  what  his 
prejudices,  will,  however,  admit  that  it  is  a  fact,  highly  honorable  to  the 
venerable  line  of  the  Popes,  that,  out  of  more  than  tw6  hundred  and  fifty 
of  them,  only  five  or  six,  at  most,  can  be  pointed  out  as  immoral  and 
wicked  men.*  And  it  is  a  proof  of  the  true  Catholic  spirit,  and  of  the 
noble  freedom  and  candor  which  Catholicity  inspires,  that  the  vices  of 
these  men  have  been  exposed  and  rebuked  by  Catholic  writers  more 
sternly,  perhaps,  than  by  even  the  bitterest  enemies  of  the  papacy. 

As  we  cannot,  within  our  narrow  limits,  undertake  to  examine  the 
•  statements  of  M.  Bonnechose  in  detail,  we  propose  to  do,  what  may 
perhaps  be  better,  as  well  as  more  interesting  and  satisfactory  to  the 
general  reader, —  rapidly  to  go  over  the  same  ground  winch  he  has 
traversed  ;  partly  in  his  company,  and  partly  in  that  of  certain  venerable 
old  chroniclers  whom  he  appears  to  have  studiously  avoided.  And  first, 
we  will  endeavor  to  furnish  a  condensed  sketch  of  the  causes,  rise, 
progress,  and  termination  of  the  Great  Schism  of  the  West  :  and  then, 
in  a  separate  paper,  we  will  attempt  to  discuss  the  character  of  John  Huss 
and  his  treatment  by  the  council  of  Constance  ;  and  to  unfold,  in  a 
summary  manner,  the  history  of  the  Hussites,  both  before  and  after  tb.e 
death  of  their  founder. 

As  we  proceed,  we  will  endeavor  to  supply  some  of  the  manifold 
deficiencies,  to  correct  the  occasional  blunders,  and  to  expose  the  sophistry 
of  our  historian  ;  so  far  at  least  as  we  shall  be  able  to  attain  these  objects, 
without  turning  too  much  from  the  path  we  have  marked  out.  And  we 
will  advance  nothing  important,  without  a  clear  warrant  from  the  original 
authorities  themselves.^ 

Our  author’s  theory  on  the  origin  of  the  Schism  is  obscure  and  vague 
enough.^  If  his  words  have  any  definite  meaning,  —  and  it  would  require 
one  more  sharp-sighted  than  ourselves  to  extract  from  them  any  clear  signi¬ 
fication, —  they  imply  the  opinion,  that  the  Schism  originated  in  the  lofty 

1  And  even  the  vices  imputed  to  some  of  these  have  been  greatly  exaggerated. 

2  The  principal  autliorinies  on  the  Great  Schism  of  the  West  are  the  following:  the  original 
documents  contained  in  D’  Achery  —  Spicilegiutn,  t.  i,  p.  763,  seqq.  ;  in  Martene  and  Durand  —  The¬ 
saurus  novns  Anecd.  tom.  ii,  p.  1073,  seqq.  ;  and  in  the  Veterum  Script.  Ampli.<sima  Collectio  by  the 
same  author.^,  tom  vii  p  425,  seqq.  Also  Thoodoricus  de  Niem  (writer  to  the  Uoman  Copes  from 
1378  to  1410),  lihri  iii.  de  Schismate,  to  which  a  fourth  was  afterwards  added,  with  the  title  — 
Nemus  Uuionis — all  published  together,  Basileae,  1566,  fol.  etc.  This  writer  is  bitter  in  his  tone, 
barbarous  in  his  Latin,  and  exaggerated  in  his  statements.  He  is  in  consequence  a  special  favorite 
of  M.  Bonnechose  To  tliese  add  the  more  recent  writers :  Louis  Maimbourg  (Catholic)  llistoire 
du  Grand  Schismo  d'Occident,  a  Baris,  1678,  4to. :  Pierre  du  Puy  (Catholic)  llistoire  du  Schisnie, 
Paris,  1700.  12nio:  the  Preface  to  the  Ampliss.  Collectio  of  Martene  and  Durand,  supra;  and  the 
work  of  .Jaq  L’Enfant  (Calvinist)  Hist,  du  Concile  de  Pi.se,  1.  i  and  ii  —  Ainsterd.  1724.  4‘o 
Consult  also  Labbaei  Concilia  Pisanum  etConstant.  and  De  Ilardt — Cone.  Constant,  tom.  ii,  p.  836,  st-q 

3  In  trod.  p.  10 


ROME  AND  AVIGNON. 


175 


ambition  and  exaggerated  pretensions  of  the  Popes.  This  is,  to  say  the 
least,  a  very  short-sighted  and  narrow  view  of  the  case.  For  more  than 
seventy  years  before  the  Schism,  there  had  been  steadily  at  work  a  number 
of  influences,  partly  internal  and  partly  external  to  the  papacy,  which 
slowly  but  surely  brought  it  about.  The  lawless  ambition  cherished  by 
the  different  claimants  of  the  popedom  may  have  perpetuated  the  Schism, 
after  it  had  already  commenced ;  of  itself  it  could  scarcely  have  caused  it, 
without  the  co-operation  of  other  powerful  influences. 

We  are,  however,  free  to  admit,  at  the  very  outset,  that  the  veneration 
universally  paid  to  the  Roman  Pontiffs  during  the  middle  ages,  and  the 
temporal  and  political  consequence  with  which  a  long  train  of  events  had 
invested  the  papal  office,  made  the  tiara  a  glittering  prize  for  the  ambitious 
aspirant.  But  that  same  deep  and  abiding  reverence  would  not  have 
brooked  the  ambition,  which  sought  the  dignity  by  undue  means,  or  to  the 
sacrifice  of  unity.  It  was  the  ambition  of  princes,  much  more  than  the 
ambition  of  Popes,  which  originated  and  perpetuated  the  Great  Schism. 
Had  the  Church  been  left  to  herself,  she  would  never  have  been  rent  by 
division. 

In  her  humane  efforts  to  subdue  the  ferocity,  to  correct  the  morals,  and 
to  humanize  the  manners  of  the  European  nations,  during  the  earlier  portion 
of  tlie  middle  ages,  the  Church  had  been  necessarily  drawn  into  the  vortex 
of  European  politics;  and  once  drawn  in,  she  was  compelled  to  share  in  all 
its  dangers,  storms,  and  vicissitudes.  The  papacy  had  “stooped  to  con¬ 
quer;”  it  had  descended  from  its  lofty  position  of  mere  spirituality  into  the 
arena  of  worldly  affairs,  in  order  to  reclaim  men  from  barbarism,  and  the 
result  was,  that  to  maintain  itself  in  its  new  relations  to  society,  it  had  to 
intermingle  in  scenes  of  worldly  strife,  and  to  surround  itself  with  worldly 
consequence.  The  princes  of  Europe,  who  had  freely  acknowledged  and 
encouraged  this  political  power  of  the  Popes,  and  who  derived  from  it  so 
many  signal  advantages,  at  length  became  weary  of  the  restraints  it  imposed 
on  them,  and  shook  off  the  yoke ;  and  the  papacy  was  thus  compelled  to 
return  to  its  original  position.  But,  ere  it  did  return,  it  bore  on  its  body 
the  marks  of  cruel  wounds,  received  in  the  conflict  with  the  princes  of  the 
world.  The  Great  Schism  of  the  west  was  a  severe,  but  perhaps,  a  necessary 
lesson.  It  taught  the  papacy  what  it  had  to  expect  from  that  treacherous 
world  which  had  crucified  its  Founder ;  it  threw  it  back  on  its  primitive 
resources;  it  taught  it  wherein  lay  its  real  strength,  and  the  true  secret  of 
its  vitality  and  indestructibility. 

This  general  view  of  the  subject  sheds  great  light  on  the  origin  of  the 
Schism.  As  we  have  already  intimated,  to  explain  the  causes  which  led 
to  it,  we  must  go  back  for  more  than  seventy  years,  to  the  period  of  the 
unfortunate  controversy  between  Pope  Boniface  VIII.’  and  Philip  the  Fair, 
king  of  France.  The  circumstances  of  that  unhappy  difference  are  familiar 
to  every  reader  of  Church  History ;  the  results  which  grew  out  of  it  are 

1  lie  was  elected  Pope  December  24. 1294,  and  died  October  11,  1303.  lie  was  the  successor  of  St 
Coelestine  V 


176 


THE  GREAT  SCHISM  OF  THE  WEST, 


too  marked  to  be  easily  forgotten.  Both  of  tlie  illustrious  disputants  no 
doubt  went  too  far ;  but  we  think  the  impartial  will  admit,  that  Philip  was 
much  more  in  the  wrong  than  his  opponent.  Young,  ardent,  ambitious, 
and  unscrupulous,  the  French  monarch  seemed  to  aim  at  nothing  less  than 
universal  empire.  He  was  the  Napoleon  of  his  day  ;  and,  like  Napoleon, 
he  dragged  the  Popes  into  captivity.  He  had  embroiled  himself  in  a 
struggle  with  England  and  with  Aragon ;  and  the  consequence  was  an 
almost  general  war  throughout  Europe. 

Boniface,  treading  in  the  footsteps  of  his  predecessors,  sought  to  pour  oil 
on  the  boiling  waters  ;  and  he'  offered  to  mediate  between  the  belligerent 
sovereigns.  He  succeeded  in  bringing  about  a  peace  between  France  and 
Aragon  ;  and  his  proffer  of  mediation  between  France  and  England,  though 
at  first  declined,  was  at  length  accepted  by  the  fiery  French  monarch. 
His  award,  though  very  wise  and  impartial,'  was,  however,  contemptuously 
refused  by  the  ambitious  Philip ;  and  the  war  raged  on  with  renewed 
violence. 

To  raise  the  amount  necessary  to  prosecute  the  war  with  vigor,  Philip 
imposed  most  exorbitant  taxes  on  both  the  clergy  and  laity  of  his  king¬ 
dom  ;  he  reduced  the  church  of  France  to  a  cruel  servitude  ;  and  he  even 
went  so  far  as  to  debase  the  coin  of  the  kingdom  !  Boniface  protested 
against  his  iniquitous  conduct,  in  the  face  of  all  Europe  ;  he  issued  bull 
after  bull  against  him  ;  he  waxed  stronger  and  stronger  in  his  denuncia¬ 
tions  ;  and  finally,  he  excommunicated  Philip,  and  placed  France  under  an 
interdict.  Philip  treated  his  menaces  and  excommunication  with  contempt; 
and,  though  the  bold  Pontiff  more  than  once  evinced  a  disposition  for  an 
accommodation,  he  spurned  all  his  offers.  The  states  general  of  France 
were  convened;  and  William  de  Nogaret,  the  keeper  of  the  royal  seals, 
was  despatched  to  Rome  with  a  strong  protest  against  the  proceedings  of 
the  Pope.  This  unscrupulous  envoy  seized  on  the  person  of  Boniface  at 
Anagni ;  and  one  of  his  attendants,  Sciarra  Colonna,  a  personal  enemy  of  the 
Pontiff,  is  said  to  have  struck  him  on  the  face  with  his  gauntlet.  Though 
rescued  from  tlie  hands  of  his  enemies  by  the  people  of  Anagni,  Boniface 
soon  after  died  at  Rome,  probably  of  ill  treatment  and  of  chagrin. 

Thus  rid  of  his  dread  opponent,  Philip  did  not,  however,  cease  to  per¬ 
secute  his  memory.  The  better  to  effect  his  purpose  of  vengeance,  ho 
used  every  effcrt  to  have  a  successor  elected  who  would  enter  into  his  own 
views.  But  at  first  he  did  not  succeed  to  the  full  extent  of  his  wishes. 
Benedict  XI.  was  chosen  by  the  cardinals  ;  but,  though  he  consented  to 
modify  some  of  the  more  obnoxious  among  the  bulls  of  his  predecessor, 
yet  he  would  not,  during  the  few  months  of  his  pontificate,  consent  to  all 
the  wishes  of  Philip. 

On  the  death  of  this  Pontiff,  Philip  brought  every  influence  to  bear  on 
the  conclave  of  cardinal  electors  ;  and  the  result  was  the  election  to  the 
popedom  of  one  among  his  own  subjects,  Bertrand  d’Agoust,.  archbishop 

1  Gieseler,  a  Protestant,  admits  '•  tliat  this  decision  was  not  partial.”  Text  Book  Eccles.  Hist, 
vol.  ii,  p.  241.  Note.  Americau  edition,  in  3  Tols.  Sto. 


ROME  AND  AVIGNON. 


177 


of  Bordeaux,  who  took  the  name  of  Clement  V.  He  was  chosen  on  tho 
6Lh  day  of  June,  1305;  and,  in  accordance  with  the  wishes  of  tlie  French 
monarch,  with  whom  he  is  said  to  have  had  a  secret  undersUmding’,  he 
took  up  his  residence  at  Avignon  in  France. 

This  was,  in  every  respect,  a  most  unfortunate  step.  It  made  the  Popes 
entirely  too  dependent  on  France.  It  crippled  their  energies,  and  greatly 
diminished  the  sphere  of  their  usefulness.  Their  acts  were  often  viewed 
with  suspicion  by  those  belonging  to  other  kingdoms  ;  and,  wlien  Fiance 
was  at  war  with  any  other  European  power,  tiie  Pontiff  was  scarcely  free 
to  hold  communication  with  its  subjects.  No  one  can  read  the  history  of 
the  seven  Popes  who  successively  reigned  at  Avignon,'  from  1305  to  1378’J 
without  being  convinced  of  the  evils  consequent  on  this  state  of  depend¬ 
ence,  and  without  feeling  that  the  Pontiff  should  be  independent  of  all  the 
sovereigns  of  Europe.  Most  of  them  were  too  much  taken  up  with  mere 
worldly  business,  and  were  too  subservient  to  the  interests  of  France  ;  and 
a  few  of  them, — as  John  XXII., —  were  addicted  to  nepotism.  Witn  these 
exceptions,  however,  they  were  in  the  main  good  men  ;  some  of  tliem  were 
very  exemplary.  Benedict  XII.  in  particular,  won  tlie  esteem  of  all  by 
his  zeal  and  disinterestedness.  He  was  wont  to  say,  that  a  Pontiff  should 
be,  like  Melchisedech,  “  without  father,  without  mother,  without  genealogy.’^ 

When  Clement  V.  determined  to  reside  in  France,  it  is  not  probable 
that  he  foresaw  all  the  evils  which  would  result  from  this  step,  or  that  his 
successors  would  imitate  his  example.  He  and  they  were  still  bishops  of 
Rome,  which  they  governed  by  their  vicars.  On  his  death,  a  long  contest 
ensued  in  the  conclave  in  regard  to  the  choice  of  a  successor.  The  two 
parties  of  the  French  and  Italian  cardinals,  the  mutual  jealousy  of  which 
afterwards  caused  and  perpetuated  the  Schism,  already  began  to  show  them¬ 
selves,  in  their  strong  antagonism.  The  Italians,  however,  gained  the  day  ;  so 
far  at  least  as  to  exact  an  oath  from  the  newly  elected  Pontiff,  that  he  would, 
without  delay,  return  to  Rome.  John  XXII.,  upon  whom  the  choice  fell,, 
evaded  or  forgot  the  fulfillment  of  his  promise. 

His  successors  unfortunately  imitated  his  example.  The  number  of 
French  soon  exceeded  that  of  the  Italian  cardinals  in  the  conclave,  French  • 
influence  thus  became  paramount  in  the  election  of  the  Pontifis  ;  and  the 
return  of  the  Popes  to  their  see  seemed  to  be  almost  indefinitely  postponed. 
Seventy-one  years  elapsed,  ere  the  papacy  could  recover  from  the  false  and 
unnatural  position,  into  which  the  intrigues  of  Philip  the  Fair  and  the  pliant 
compliance  of  Clement  V.  had  beti-ayed  it. 

Meantime,  Rome,  deprived  of  the  presence  and  influence  of  its  chief 
pastor,*  was  de.solate  in  its  widowhood,  and  was  torn  by  factions,  caused  by 
ambitious  noblemen  or  demagogues  striving  for  the  mastery.  Her  voice 
of  wailing  was  heard  throughout  Europe,  and  its  sounds  were  most  pathetic 
and  emphatic  at  the  gates  of  the  pontifical  palace  at  Avignon.  Embassy 


1  Clement.  V,  .Tolin  XXII.,  Benedict,  XIT.,  Clement  VI  ,  Umocent  VI ,  Urban  V.,  and  Gregory  XI. 
Wecould  easily  multiply  quotations  froin  the  original  t-ouires  to  prove  all  the  statement.^  madeabov© 
did  we  not  fear  to  cumber  our  margin  too  much  with  references. 

15 


178 


THE  GREAT  SCHISM  OF  THE  WEST. 


after  embassy  was  sent  to  implore  the  Pontiffs  to  return  to  their  see.  The 
eloquence  of  the  great  poet  laureate,  Petrarch,  was  enlisted  in  this  noble 
cause.  To  its  mere  human  accents  was  added  a  voice  from  heaven,  calling 
back  the  Pontiff  to  his  widowed  church.  The  sainted  women,  Bridget  of 
Sweden,  Catharine,  her  daughter,  and  Catharine  of  Sienna,  all  approached 
the  steps  of  the  papal  throne,  adding  to  the  eloquence  of  their  sex  and  of 
the  cause  they  pleaded,  certain  heavenly  visions  which  they  alleged  had 
been  vouchsafed  them,  all  warning  the  Pontiff  to  return  without  delay 
to  Rome.' 

At  length  Gregory  XI.  determined  no  longer  to  resist  appeals  so  numerous 
■*nd  so  touching.  He  left  Avignon  on  the  13th  of  September,  1376  ; 
reached  Rome  on  the  17th  of  January,  1377  ;  and  died  there  on  the  27th 
of  March,  1378.  His  death  was  the  signal  for  that  long  and  bitter  struggle 
between  the  Italian  and  the  French  cardinals,  between  Italy  and  France, 
between  Rome  and  Avignon,  which  originated  and  perpetuated  the  fatal 
Schism. 

Of  the  sixteen  cardinals,  who  had  accompanied  Gregory  XI.  to  Rome, 
and  on  whom  now  devolved  the  task  of  choosing  his  successor,  only  four 
were  Italians ;  eleven  of  the  remaining  twelve  were  Frenchmen,  and  one 
was  a  Spaniard.  The  French  influence  greatly  predominated;  and  a 
Frenchman  would,  in  all  probability,  have  been  elected,  had  not  the  Roman 
people  assembled  around  the  conclave  in  great  numbers,  and  clamored 
vociferously, —  That  a  Roman,  or  at  least  an  Italian,  should  be  nominated.’^ 
Urged  by  motives  of  prudence  or  of  fear,^  the  cardinals  acceded  to  the 
wishes  of  the  people  ;  and  on  the  9th  of  April,  1378,  they  selected  a 
Neapolitan,  Bartholomeo  di  Prignano,  archbishop  of  Bari,  who  took  the 
name  of  Urban  VI.  The  vote  was  unanimous  ;  and  the  cardinals,  for  more 
than  four  months,  continued  to  acknowledge  and  to  obey  Urban  as  the 
lawfully  appointed  Pope.^  During  all  this  time,  not  a  whisper  is  recorded 
to  have  been  heard  about  the  invalidity  of  Urban’s  election ;  not  a  ^ord 
about  the  bodily  fear  which  had  seized  on  the  electors,  and  trammeled  their 
freedom. 

But  Urban  VI.,  whom  all  writers  concur  in  representing  as  an  humble, 
pious,  and  disinterested  man  before  his  election,  began  soon  afterwards  to 
act  with  a  vigor,  and  even  harshness,  which  greatly  astonished  his  electors. 

1  It  is  almost  needless  to  remark  that  M.  Bonnechose  says  not  a  word  about  all  this  preliminary 

history.  Here,  as  frequently  elsewhere,  his  brevity  is  evidently  studied.  It  was  enough  for  Ais 
philosophy,  that  the  Schism  really  happened,  no  matter  by  what  previous  induences  or  train  of 
events ;  and  it  was  enough  for  Ats  purpose  to  intimate  that  the  ambition  of  the  Popes  had  caused  it! 
He  knew,  at  least,  that  this  flippant  theory  would  satisfy  the  class  of  readers  for  whose  tastes  he 
catered.  * 

2  According  to  most  of  the  French  accounts  (see  1.  et  II.  Vita  Qregorii  XI.  apud  Baluzium  1,  442 
seqq.  and  Froissart’s  Chronicles,)  the  election  was  not  free,  but  brought  about  by  popular  commo¬ 
tions  and  threats.  Hut,  according  to  the  much  more  respectable  and  probable  Italian  accounts,  the 
choice  was  entirely  free,  and  the  popular  commotion  occurred  in  consequence  of  a  misunderstanding, 
a/igr  the  election  had  been  already  made,  (see  Theod.  de  Niem,  L.  I.  c.  2.  Baynaldus  ad  Annum  1378 
—also  L’Enfant,  Hist.  Cone.  Pis.  I.  7,  seq.) 

3  All  grant  this ;  even  Leonardus  Arretlnus,  Flavius  Blondus,  Platina,  and  other  sharp  writerJ 
.against  the  Popes. 


ROME  AND  AVIGNON. 


179 


As  Theodoricus  de  Niem  tells  us,*  *‘he  began  to  rebuke  the  bishops  who 
flocked  to  Rome,  calling  them  perjurers,  because  they  had  abandoned  their 
churches.”  He  then  preached  a  sermon,  “  in  which  he  openly  reproved 
the  vices  of  cardinals  and  prelates,  which  they  took  very  ill.”^  The  same 
author  relates  the  following  characteristic  anecdote  :  “  A  certain  collector 
of  moneys  for  the  apostolic  chamber  came,  about  that  time,  from  a  certain 
province  into  the  presence  of  the  said  Urban,  and  offered  him  a  small  sum 
of  money  as  a  remuneration  for  his  office  of  collector  ;  to  whom  the  Pontiff 
said  :  ‘  Thy  money  be  with  thee  unto  perdition  ;  ^ —  and  he  would  not  receive 
it.’”  He  adds  that  Urban,  by  doing  “things  similar  to  this,  from  day  to 
day,  provoked  against  himself  the  anger  of  most  of  the  cardinals  and  prelates;” 
and  that  the  subsequent  Schism  “  was  caused  more  by  the  mutual  rancor 
of  the  parties,  than  by  the  alleged  fear  in  the  election  of  Urban.’” 

We  have  been  thus  particular  in  our  quotations  from  de  Niem,  because 
he  is  a  great  favorite  with  M.  Bonnechose,  who  refers  to  him  in  this  very 
place,  but  takes  special  care  to  suppress  the  testimonies  which  we  have  here 
supplied.  He  furnishes  only  a  garbled  quotation,  to  prove  the  tyranny  of 
Urban,  but  he  says  nothing  of  the  praiseworthy  zeal  which  actuated  the 
Pontiff’.  He  can  himself  rebuke  the  pride  and  vices  of  cardinals  and 
bishops  ;  but  if  a  Pope,  in  virtue  of  his  office,  dare  do  the  same,  his  testi¬ 
mony  must  be  suppressed,  and  all  that  need  be  said  in  the  premises  is,  that 
he  is  a  tyrant !  Such  is  modern  historic  justice  !  Now,  we  have  no  doubt 
that  Urban  was  a  plain  and  blunt  man,  sincere  in  his  zeal  for  the  correction 
of  abuses,  but  often  harsh  and  indiscreet  in  the  manner  of  enforcing 
obedience.  The  French  cardinals  could  not  brook  his  severity;  they 
remembered  the  comparative  ease  and  comfort  they  had  enjoyed  in  their 
own  country ;  and  they  determined  at  once  to  proceed  to  the  election  of  a 
Pope  who  would  be  more  pliant  and  accommodating  to  their  wishes,  and 
whom  they  might  probably  induce  to  accompany  them  back  to  France. 

Accordingly,  they  left  Rome  under  various  pretexts,  and  met  first  at 
Anagni,  and  then  at  Fondi,  where,  after  having  issued  a  manifesto  remark-- 
able  only  for  its  violence  and  its  utter  recklessness  of  truth,  they  declared 
Urban  an  intruder  into  the  papacy,  and  elected  Clement  VII.  in  his  stead. 
Thus  altar  was  set  up  against  altar,  and  Pope  against  Pope  !  Europe  was 
divided  in  its  obedience  between  the  two  claimants.  All  Italy  except 
Naples,  Germany,  Sweden,  Denmark,  England,  Poland,  and  Prussia, 
declared  for  Urban  ;  while  France,  Naples,  Scotland,  Savoy,  Lorraine,  and 
subsequently  Castile,  Aragon,  and  Navarra  declared  for  Clement.  The 
latter  claimant  soon  betook  himself  to  Avignon,  where  he  placed  himself 
entirely  under  the  overshadowing  influence  of  FrancJe,^ 

1  De  schismate,  1. 1,  c,  4.  2  Id.  c.  5.  8  Ibid.  4  Id.  c.  7. 

5  The  chief  difficulty  in  deciding  between  the  two  claimants,  resulted  from  the  different  and  contra¬ 
dictory  statements  of  the  partisans  on  both  sides.  However,  the  most  famous  jurists  of  the  day, 
John  di  Lignano,  papal  vicar  at  Bologna,  Baldus,  professor  in  Perugia,  and  Jacobus  de  Sena,  doctor 
Bonon.  pronounced  Urban’s  election  valid  (See  Raynald.  ad  Ann.  1378,  and  Bulcp.us,  Hist.  Univ. 
Paris.)  St.  Catharine  of  Sienna  (ep.  31)  expressed  the  greatest  abhorrence  for  the  revolted  cardinals 
whom  she  called  dsemones  humana  carne  induti — demons  in  human  shape, 

k 


180  THE  GREAT  SCHISM  OF  THE  WEST. 


France  might  have  extinguished  the  Schism  at  once,  by  refusing  to 
recognize  Clement;  but  she  fostered  and  perpetuated  it  with  all  her  might. 
It  was  through  her  influence  that  most  of  the  kingdoms  and  provinces, 
which  acknowledged  Clement,  were  induced  to  do  so.  She  sent  her  ambas¬ 
sadors  every  where,  in  order  to  extend  the  obedience'  of  the  French  Pope. 
She  urged  all  kinds  of  political  motives,  to  induce  the  various  states  of 
Europe  to  accede  to  her  views ;  and  she  succeeded  but  too  well  in  her 
purpose.  Slie  had  too  long  tasted  the  political  advanUiges  accruing  to  her 
from  the  residence  of  the  Popes  at  Avignon,  to  submit,  without  a  struggle, 
to  their  being  permanently  located  in  their  own  proper  see  at  Rome. 

Thus  political  ambition  perpetuated,  as  it  had  caused,  the  great  Schism 
of  the  West.  The  Church  was  torn  by  schism,  mainly  through  the  intrigues 
of  secular  princes.  The  reckless  ambition  of  Philip  the  Fair,  had  origi¬ 
nally  dragged  the  papacy  into  captivity  at  Avignon,  as  we  have  already 
seen;  and  the  same  reckless  spirit  now  sought  to  renew  and  to  perpetuate 
this  unnatural  exile, ^  at  the  expense  of  the  peace  and  unity  of  Christendom, 
It  was,  indeed,  a  most  deplorable  state  of  things  ;  a  spectacle  well  calculated 
to  draw  tears  from  the  eyes  of  every  sincere  lover  of  the  Church.  But  was 
there  no  remedy  for  the  evil  ? 

There  was ;  and  that  remedy  came,  under  God,  chiefly  from  Franco 
herself !  This  fact  is  as  undoubted,  as  it  is  remarkable  and  honorable  to 
the  nation,  which  has  well  merited  the  title  of  Most  Christian  ;  and  which 
has  ever  been  the  most  efficient  champion  of  the  papacy  in  the  hour  of  its 
greatest  need.  Had  not  the  French  university  of  Paris,  the  French 
clergy,  and,  through  their  entreaties  and  influence,  finally  the  French 
government,  thrown  their  influence  in  the  scale  of  unity,  we  know  of  no 
human  means  by  which  the  Great  Schism  would,  or  could  have  been 
healed. 

Probably  no  other  power  in  Europe  could  have  effected'  this  object : 
“Richard  If.,  in  England,  and  Charles  VI.,  in  France,  were  beo-innino- 

•  O  O 

their  disastrous  reigns ;  —  in  Spain,  Italy,  and  Hungary,  feeble  or 
ferocious  despots  alternately  rose  or  fell.  On  no  throne  was  there  seated  ' 
a  man  capable  of  applying  a  remedy  to  the  Schism,  or  of  giving  a  salutary 
impulse  to  Europe.  One  coilld  almost  have  said,  that  an  open  field  had 
been  left  to  the  papal  power,  only  that  it  might  inflict  on  itself  the  most 
terrible  wounds, —  as  if  it  were  of  so  indestructible  a  nature  that  its  ruin » 
could  only  proceed  from  itself.”  ^ 

Years  rotted  on  ;  the  Schism  still  continued,  and  Pontiff  still  succeeded 
Pontiff,  both  at  Rome  and  at  Avignon.  The  Church  wept  and  sighed 
for  unity  ;  and  the  cardinals  at  each  succeeding  election  were  implored 
to  terminate  the  Schism,  by  coalescing  with  those  of  the  other  claimant, 

1  The  territory  which  acknowledged  and  obeyed  a  Pope,  during  the  period  in  question,  was  called 
by  this  name.  Kor  the  active  exertions  of  France  in  favor  of  Clement,  see  Prima  Vita  dementis  V. 
lin  Baluzio  I.  496  seqq  ),  and  other  cotemporary  writers,  passim. 

2  The  Italian.s  are  in  the  habit  of  comparing  the  sojourn  of  the  Popes  at  Avignon  to  the  seventy 
years  captivity  of  the  Israelites  in  llabylou! 

3  Bonnechose,  Historical  Introduction,  etc.,  p.  11.  The  result  proved,  we  apprehend,  that  the 
papacy  was  indestructible,  even  by  itself. 


ROME  AND  ^AVIGNON. 


181 


or  by  some  other  effectual  means.  The  means  they  usually  adopted  for 
this  purpose  proved  very  inadequate.  It  consisted  in  exacting  of  the 
newly  elected  Pope  an  oath/  that  he  would  do  everything  in  his  power, 
and  even,  if  necessary,  that  he  would  resign  the  popedom,  to  secure  unity 
to  the  Church.  But  a  compliance  with  this  oath  was  evaded  under  one 
pretext  or  another  ;  and  the  Schism  still  continued.  There  seemed  to  be 
no  human  remedy  for  it :  it  was  like  a  circle  which  has  no  end.  And  this 
very  comparison  was  adopted  by  a  cotemporary  French  preacher,  the 
famous  Pierre  aux  Boeufs  :  — 

“  To  this  circle  do  I  liken  the  Schism,  from  the  great  similitude  I 
perceive  between  tliem.  Alas  !  does  not  the  present  Schism  exhibit  the 
form  of  a  circle,  in  which  can  be  found  neither  end  nor  outlet  ?  Several 
others  there  have  been,  but  they  were  only  semi-circles,  whereof  the  end 
could  be  found,  and  the  issue  arrived  at.  But  in  the  present  Schism  we 
find  neither  bottom  nor  shore.”  ^ 

In  this  conjuncture  of  afiairs,  the  university  of  Paris  stepped  forth  nobly 
to  the  rescue.  Rendered  illustrious  by  the  talents  and  learning  of  the 
famous  Peter  d’Ailly, —  “  the  eagle  of  France,”  —  and  by  those  of  his  no 
less  distinguished  disciple,  John  Charlier  Geisou,  the  university  was  then 
the  first  in  Europe.  Sustained  by  the  French  prelates  and  clergy,  but 
often  thwarted  and  baffled  by  the  intrigues  and  chicanery  of  the  French 
court,  the  university  proceeded  boldly  and  fearlessly  to  discuss  the  knotty 
question  of  the  Schism,  and  to  devise  means  for  bringing  it  to  a  happy 
termination. 

On  the  6th  day  of  June,  1394,  fifteen  years  after  the  commencement  of 
the  Schism,  this  learned  body  promulgated  its  famous  opinion,  in  which 
it  recommended  three  methods  of  putting  an  end  to  tlie  difficulty,  and  of 
eecuring  peace  to  the  Church  :  a  resignation  by  the  respective  claimants, 
a  compromise  between  them,  or,  both  of  these  means  failing,  a  general 
council  to  pronounce  definitively  on  the  whole  merits  of  the  question. 
The  first  method  was  most  strongly  recommended ;  the  last  was  repre¬ 
sented  as  a  dernier  resort,  to  remedy  an  otherwise  incurable  evil.^  The 
university,  at  the  same  time,  addressed  a  strong  letter  to  Clement  VII.  at 
Avignon  ;  who  was  not,  however,  much  moved  by  its  contents,  and  died 
soon  afterwards.'* 

He  was  succeeded  by  the  too  famous  Peter  de  Luna,  who  took  the  name 
of  B  nedict  XIII.  This  man  at  first  promised  much,  but  in  the  end  did 
nothing.  To  the  earnest  solicitations  of  the  French  national  synod, 
convened  at  Paris  in  1395,  he  returned  an  evasive  answer.  Disousted 

1  Tilts  oath,  in  the  case  of  at  least  one  of  the  Avignon  Popes,  was  rendered  entirely  nugatory  bv 
the  condition  annexed  to  it.  ihar.  the  resignation  should  take  place  wlienever  a  majority  of  the 
cardinals  sltould  deem  it  necessary.  As  the  pope  could  multiply  the  cardinals  at  will,  thi.s  could 
BCHicely  ever  be. 

2  Cited  by  Bonnechose,  Introd.  p  13 

8  See  the  opinion  in  full  in  Buloeus  {Hi.st.  Univ.  Paris,  tom.  IV,  p.  6S7  seq.)  and  in  D'Achery, 
(Spicileglum,  1,  p.  776  seq.) 

4  It  is  reported  that  Clement  said  of  this  letter,  containing  the  opinion  of  the  French  university  : 

literae  istae  malae  sunt  et  venenosao  —  This  letter  is  evil  and  poisonous.” 

u 


182  THE  GREAT  SCHISM  OF  THE  WEST. 


with  his  tergiversation,  France  withdrew  from  his  obedience  in  another 
national  synod,  held  in  1398.  Castile  soon  followed  the  example,  and  the 
refractory  Pontiff  was  kept  a  close  prisoner  at  Avignon.  Every  thing 
seemed  then  in  a  fair  way  for  a  general  peace.  But  de  Luna  was  as  adroi* 
as  he  was  obstinate.  He  seemed  to  yield  to  the  wishes  of  the  French 
court,  university,  and  clergy,  and  promised  to  do  everything  that  was  in 
his  power  to  promote  the  unity  of  the  Church  :  and  France  once  more 
returned  under  his  obedience} 

Innocent  VII.,  the  second  successor  of  Urban  VI.,  the  Roman  claimant 
of  the  papacy,  having  made  a  similar  promise  at  his  election  in  1404, 
negotiations  were  immediately  opened  between  Rome  and  Avignon  for 
the  purpose  of  bringing  about  a  compromise.  These  consumed  much 
time,  but  ended  in  nothing.  The  failure  caused  general  dissatisfaction  ; 
and  France  again  threatened  to  withdraw  from  the  obedience  of  Benedict 
XIII.  Meantime,  Angelo  Corario,  under  the  name  of  Gregory  XII.,  had 
succeeded  Innocent  VII ;  and,  impelled  by  the  loud  murmurs  of  France 
and  of  the  whole  Catholic  world,  Benedict  and  Gregory  arranged  a 
meeting  to  be  held  at  Savona,  in  September,  1307.  This  meeting  never 
took  place:  every  expedient  was,  on  the  contrary,  resorted  to  to  consume 
time,  and  to  prevent  the  interview.^ 

Disgusted  with  all  this  paltry  manoeuvering,  as  unworthy  of  both  exalted 
personages,  and  so  much  at  variance  with  their  solemn  promises,  the 
cardinals  on  both  sides  abandoned  them,  met  at  Leghorn,  and  entered  into 
an  arrangement  to  call  a  general  council  at  Pisa,  in  March,  1409,  for  the 
final  settlement  of  the  difficulty.  The  council  met  at  the  appointed  time 
and  place.  There  assisted  at  it  about  two  hundred  archbishops  and 
bishops,  besides  twenty-four  cardinals,  and  the  ambassadors  of  all  the 
principal  European  kingdoms. 

“  Never,’’  says  M.  Bonnechose,  “  had  such  an  imposing  assembly  been 
seen  in  Europe,  and  never  had  any,  from  the  number  and  quality  of  its 
members,  been  so  justly  entitled  to  claim  the  name  of  an  oecumenical 
council.”  ^ 

We  humbly  beg  his  pardon :  this  is  much  more  flippant  than  true. 
The  great  council  of  Lateran,  held  at  Rome  under  Innocent  III.,  in 
1215,  was  at  least  twice  as  large  and  imposing ;  and  that  of  Vienne,  held 
under  Clement  V.,  in  1311,  numbered,  according  to  Villani,  three  hundred 
bishops.  Whether  the  Pisan  Synod  was  strictly  an  oecumenical  or 
general  council,  we  venture  not  to  decide,  not  do  we  deem  it  very  impor¬ 
tant.  It  was  convoked  by  neither  claimant  of  the  papacy,  and  its  acts 
were  strongly  condemned  by  both,  as  might  have  been  anticipated. 
Whether  this  defect  was  healed  by  the  necessity  of  the  emergency,  or 

1  A.D.  1403. 

2  Leonardo  Arrettino,  a  cotemporary,  but  a  very  sharp  writer,  and  unsparing  of  the  Popes, 
humorously  describes  these  expedients,  by  .saying  that  in  arratiging  the  place  of  meeting,  Gregory 
scAintd  like  a  land  animal  which  dreaded  the  water,  and  Benedict,  like  an  aquatic  animal  which 
dreaded  the  laud  1  (.Apud  .Maratori  —  Scriptores  Kerum  Italic,  tom.  xix,  p.  926.) 

8  P.  19. 


ROME  AND  AVIGNON. 


183 


not,  we  cannot  say.  It  was  an'  extraordinary  case ;  —  such  a  one  as  had 
never  occurred  before,  nor  has  ever  happened  since.' 

This  council,  guided  by  the  counsels  and  eloquence  of  the  two  ablest 
men  of  the  day,  Peter  D’Ailly,  bishop  of  Cambray,  and  John  Gerson, 
chancellor  of  the  university  of  Paris,  immediately  cited  both  Pontitfs  to 
appear  before  it ;  and,  on  their  refusal  to  obey  the  summons,  proceeded  to 
depose  them  as  contumacious  and  schismatical ;  and  immediately  elected 
in  their  place  another,  who  took  the  name  of  Alexander  V.  After 
adopting  some  measures  for  the  reform  of  existing  abuses,  the  synod  was 
dissolved  by  the  newly  elected  Pontiflf. 

The  two  deposed  Pontiffs  now  hurled  their  anathemas  at  the  heads  of 
those  who  had  ventured  to  degrade  them  ;  and  each  of  them  still  had, 
unhappily,  some  adherents.  Spain  and  Scotland  remained  faithful  to 
Benedict  XIII.,  while  Naples,  and  a  few  of  the  smaller  states  of  Italy  and 
Germany  adhered  to  Gregory  XII.  Instead  of  two,  the  Christian  world 
now  had  three  claimants  of  the  papacy  !  The  council  of  Pisa  thus  left  the 
Church  in  a  more  deplorable  state  than  it  had  found  her  ;  and  the  Schism 
was  destined  yet  to  cantiriue  a  few  years  longer,  under  still  more 
aggravated  circumstances. 

This  state  of  things  could  no  longer  be  endured.  The  Church  rose  en 
masse;  and  the  declaration  went  forth  that  the  Schism  must  be  terminated. 
A  voice  proceeded  from  the  university  of  Paris,  which  was  re-echoed 
throughout  Christendom,  that  the  Church  must  be  reformed,  “both  in  its 
head  and  in  its  members.”^  John  XXIII,  the  successor  of  Alexander  V,, 
who  was  considered  to  have  the  best  claims  to  the  papacy,  was  compelled 
by  the  force  of  public  opinion  to  convoke  a  general  council  at  Constance. 
The  council  was  opened,  according  to  all  the  forms  prescribed  by  law  and 
usage,  on  the  5th  of  November,  1414.  All  were  agreed  that  it  was  a 
general  council. 

It  was  soon  perceived  by  the  assembled  fathers,  that  the  only  means  of 
bringing  about  a  permanent  accomodation,  was  to  induce  or  to  compel  all 
three  of  the  claimants  to  resign,  and  then  to  proceed  to  the  election  of  a 
new  and  undoubted  Pope.  A  great  difficulty  arose  at  the  very  commence¬ 
ment  of  the  deliberations,  in  regard  to  the  authority  of  the  council  of  Pisa, 
under  the  decrees  of  which  John  XXIII.  claimed  the  papacy.  After  a 
long  debate,  it  was  decided  that  the  matter  should  proceed  as  though  the 
council  of  Pisa  had  never  been  held.  John  XXIII.  was  requested  to 
resign  ;  and  fearing,  it  is  said,  an  investigation  into  his  moral  character, 

1  We  believe  the  French  writers  more  generally  maintain  that  the  Pisan  council  was  a  general 
one  ;  and  that  the  Italians  defend  the  contrary  proposition.  By  St.  Antoninus  and  by  Beliurmine 
if  is  set  down  as  doubtful:  nec  approbatuui  nec  improbatura,  says' Bellartiiine  though  he 
inclines  to  the  opinion  that  the  Pontiff  named  by  it  and  his  successor  were  true  Popes.  (De 
Conciliis  et  Ecclesia,  L.  1,  c.  8.)  It  is  not  usually  reckoned  among  the  general  councils  by  our 
standard  writers. 

li  This  famous  saying,  so  current  at  that  period,  had  reference  to  the  unnatural  state  of  the 
Schism,  and  to  the  moral  and  disciplinary  disorders  which  had  obtained,  to  a  painful  e.xtent.  both 
in  tbe  papal  courts  of  Borne  and  Avignon,  and  among  some  of  the  cardinals,  bi.shops,  and  inferior 
clergy.  It  had  certainly  no  reference  to  doctrine,  or  to  the  spiritual  supremacy  and  prerogatives 
of  the  Pontifif. 


184 


THE  GREAT  SCHISM  OF  THE  WEST. 


which  was  none  of  the  purest,  he  promised  to  do  so,  on  the  2d  of  March, 
1415.  But  nevertheless  he  fled'  from  Constance  on  the  21st  of  tlie  same 
month ;  and  the  council,  after  a  formal  and  regular  investigation, 
pronounced  against  him  the  sentence  of  deposition  on  the  29th  of  May, 
of  the  same  year.  On  the  4th  of  July  following,  Gregory  Xll. 
voluntarily  tendered  his  resignation  to  the  council. 

There  yet  remained  one  claimant,  whom  neither  the  entreaties  nor  the 
menaces  of  the  council  could  move ;  whom  all  the  influence  of  the 
emperor  Sigismund  could  not  turn  from  his  purpose ;  whom  the  desertion 
of  Spain  in  January,  1416,  could  not  shake;  who  was  determined  to  be 
Pope,  even  if  all  the  world  abandoned  him,  and  he  had  no  one  left  over 
whom  he  might  exercise  the  papal  authority !  This  man  was  Peter  de 
Luna,  calling  himself  Benedict  XIII.  Only  one  little  Spanish  town  — • 
Peniscola  in  Valentia — remaihed  under  his  obedience ;  but  the  obstinate  old 
man  still  held  out !  He  thus  verified  what  Maimboui^g  says  of  him  :  that 
*‘he  was  furiously  obstinate,  beyond  all  that  might  be  expected  even  from 
an  Aragonese. Nor  did  he  at  all  heed  the  sentence  of  deposition  pro¬ 
nounced  against  him  by  the  council  of  Constance,  on  the  26th  of  July,  1417, 

Having  thus,  after  nearly  three  years  of  patient  labor  and  mature 
deliberation,  disposed  of  the  three  claimants  to  the  papacy,  the  council 
proceeded  to  the  election  of  a  new  and  undoubted  Pope.  On  the  1 1  th 
of  November,  1417,  the  choice  fell  upon  a  noble  Roman,  Otto  di  Colonna, 
who  took  the  name  of  Martin  V.  All  minds  and  all  hearts  united  on  him; 
and  his  election  was  received  with  general  joy  and  acclamations  through¬ 
out  Christendom.  The  great  Schism  w’-as  at  an  end  :  —  for  the  obstinacy 
of  Benedict  XIII.  gained  him  not  one  new  proselyte,  and  he  died  —  Pope 
of  Peniscola  —  in  1424.^ 

Such  is  a  summary  history  of  the  Great  Schism  of  the  west.  We  have 
endeavored  to  present  the  facts  as  w'e  found  them  in  the  original  records, 
without  concealment,  fear,  or  favor.  We  fear  not,  —  we  lather  court  the 
truth.  Truth  has  never  yet  marred  a  good  cause,  nor  materially  served  a 
bad  one.  If  the  facts  had  been  a  hundred  fold  worse  than  they  w^eie,  we 
would  not  have  feared  to  state  them  fully,  plainly,  and  without  any  disguise. 

And  now,  we  would  ask,  what  does  the  history  of  the  Great  Schism 
prove  ?  The  first  thing  it  proves  to  our  minds,  is,  that  the  Church  and 
the  papacy  are  alike  indestructible  and  imperishable.  Both  the  Church 
and  the  papacy  came  out  of  the  Schism,  much  stronger  tlian  tliey  went 
into  it !  The  result  fully  proved  that,  even  in  the  darkest  hour  of  her 
history, — when  all  boded  division,  destruction,  death,  —  there  was  a 
certain  divinely  reactive  energy  in  both  the  Church  and  the  papacy, 
which  caused  both  to  ride  the  storm  in  safety,  and  to  triumph  gioriouslv 
over  a  combination  of  evil  elements,  whicli  would  have  destroyed  any 
merely  human  institution.  The  previous  history  of  the  Church  had 

1  He  fled  more  than  once. 

2  llistoire  du  (Jr.-md  ScliisTne,  Liv.  iii,  p.  236. 

3  He  left,  four  Caidim.Ls,  three  of  whom  elected  a  Clement  Vtll.  as  his  succes.^or ;  the  fourth 

Benedict  XIV  '  Verily,  the  disciples  were  worthy  of  their  master!  ’ 


ROME  AND  AVIGNON. 


185 


proved,  that  she  could  triumph  over  external  persecution  and  internal 
heresy  in  all  their  most  hideous  and  multiform  assaults ;  this  sad  ( hapter 
in  her  annals  proved  that  she  could  conquer  a  more  dangerous  enemy 
still, —  along  and  inveterate  Schism  rending  her  very  bosom,  and  preying 
upon  her  very  vitals  for  nearly  forty  years  !  The  experiment  was  fairly 
and  fully  made,  under  circumstances,  too,  the  most  unfavorable  to  her, 
and  its  result  has  been  her  signal  and  permanent  triumph.  Surely  such 
an  institution  as  this  must  be  of  divine  oriain  !  . 

Nor  let  us  be  told  that,  during  the  Schism,  the  boasted  unity  and 
infallibility  of  the  Church  were  at  an  end.  Unity  of  faith,  of  worship, 
and  even,  in  a  certain  sense,  of  government,  was  preserved,  even  in  the 
midst  of  the  Schism.  Those  belonaina  to  different  obediences  did  not 
disagree  in  doctrine,  even  on  the  smallest  article  ;  they  worshipped  at  the 
same  altars,  and  in  the  same  way;  they  all  subscribed  to  the  same  doctrine, 
that  the  Pope,  as  the  successor  of  St.  Peter,  is  the  divinely  appointed 
visible  head  of  the  Church  on  earth.  They  merely  differed  on  a  question 
of  fact — which  was  the  true  and  lawful  Pope,  or  which  had  been  regularly 
and  canonicallv  elected?  And  so  soon  as  this  matter  of  fact  could  be 
examined  and  decided  on  by  the  proper  authority,  the  doubt  ceased  and 
all  immediately  acknowledged  and  paid  homage  to  the  undoubted  Pontiff. 

That  this  fact  could  be,  and  was,  definitely  settled,  is  another  proof  of 
the  divine  wisdom  with  which  the  Church  was  organized  by  her  founder. 
Uniil  it  could  be  determined.  Catholics  might,  without  compromising  any 
doctrine  or  principle,  safely  follow  their  ordinary  guides,  and  yield 
obedience  to  the  individual,  whom  in  their  conscience  they  believed  to 
possess  the  best  claims  to  the  papacy.* 

To  make  good  their  position,  the  adversaries  of  the  Catholic  church 
should  prove  that,  during  the  Schism,  there  was  a  change  effected  in  the 
doctrines  universally  received  and  held  by  the  Church,  before  its  com¬ 
mencement  ;  or  they  ought  to  show,  at  least,  that  some  of  the  old 
doctrines  were  called  in  question.  But  can  they  establish  this  ?  Can 
they  point  to  the  bold  innovator,  whether  Pope,  bishop,  or  professor, 
who  ventured  to  take  this  stand?  We  defy  them  to  do  so.  The  truth 
is,  the  Schism  left  all  the  doctrines,  as  well  as  the  discipline,  of  the 
Church  intact,  and  just  where  it  found  them. 

Nor  is  the  contrary  of  this  proposition  established  by  the  admitted 
fact  that,  during  the  period  in  question,  and  for  some  time  afterwards, 
lon<»*  and  animated  controversies  were  carried  on  in  the  Church  itself 

O 

concerning  the  relations  of  Popes  to  general  councils ;  the  Italians 
maintaining  the  pre-eminence  of  the  Popes,  the  French  that  of  the 
general  councils.  The  controversy  was  carried  on  under  extraordinary 
circumstances,  when  there  were  two  or  three  claimants  of  the  tiara  at  a 
time  ;  and  the  assertion,  by  the  council  of  Constance,  of  the  superiority 

lit  was  a  maxim  current  iu  tiiose  troubled  times,  that  “  a  doubtful  pope  is  no  pope  ”  Papa 
dubius  est  papa  nullus;- which  could  only  mean  that  none  but  un  undoubted  pope  could  claim  au 
ludoubted  obedience,  and  the  coneequent  prerogatives  of  the  papacy. 

U2 


186  THE  great  schism  of  the  west. 


of  a  general  council  over  the  Pope,  could  have  contemplated  none  other 
than  this  anomalous  state  of  things.  A  doubtful,  pope  might  certainly  be 
brought  under  the  action  of  the  council ;  otherwise  there  could  be  no 
remedy  for  the  Schism. 

Except  in  its  application  to  this  extraordinary  case,  the  whole  contro¬ 
versy  was  really  one  of  words,  rather  than  about  the  substance.  It  was 
agreed  on  all  hands  that  a  council  could  not  represent  the  whole  church, 
nor  therefore  be  general,  without  the  concurrence  and  sanction,  either 
present  or  subsequent,  of  an  undoubted  Pope ;  and  the  controversy,  if  it 
contemplated  a  council,  with  this  condition  essential  to  its  oecumenicity, 
amounted  merely  to  the  question,  whether  the  Pope  and  council  together 
were  superior  to  the  Pope  alone  !  Even  during  the  fiercest  excitement 
of  the  Schism,  Catholics  were  unanimous  in  admitting  the  infallible 
authority  of  a  general  council  sanctioned  by  the  Pontiff;  —  and  this  was 
all  that  the  Catholic  Church  ever  taught  on  the  subject,  as  an  article  of 
faith.  Thus  there  was  really  no  controversy  among  Catholics  on  any 
article  of  faith,  or  on  any  thing  necessarily  connected  with  one,  even 
during  the  Schism. 

The  adversaries  of  the  papacy  have  greedily  seized  upon  the  fact,  that 
during  several  years  there  were  rival  claimants  to  the  chair  of  Peter,  to 
show  that  the  line  of  succession  of  the  Roman  Pontiffs  was  interrupted 
or  broken.  The  fact  does  not  at  all  warrant  this  conclusion.  In  the  first 
place,  it  is  highly  probable,  if  not  morally  certain,  from  the  facts  already 
stated  above,  that  the  Roman  line,  which  began  with  and  succeeded 
Urban  VI.,  comprised  the  only  rightful  claimants  to  the  succession.  The 
election  of  Urban  was  recognized  as  regular  and  lawful  by  the  whole 
Church,  and  by  the  cardinal  electors  themselves,  for  more  than  four 
months  after  it  had  taken  place.  The  plea  of  want  of  liberty  in  the 
choice,  seems  to  have  been  an  afterthought  of  the  French  cardinals, 
and  it  was  so  regarded  by  De  Niem.‘  Even  after  the  Schism  had  been 
consummated  by  the  setting  up  of  a  rival  claimant  at  Avignon,  the  great 
majority  of  Christendom  continued  in  the  obedience  of  Urban. 

But,  in  the  second  place,  the  integrity  of  the  succession  is  not  affected, 
even  in  the  improbable  hypothesis,  that  the  claims  of  the  two  rival  lines 
at  Rome  and  Avignon  are  equally  balanced,  and  that  it  remains  doubtful 
which  was  the  lawful  Pope.  Even  in  this  case,  one  or  the  other  was 
certainly  the  rightful  incumbent :  and  it  matters  not  which,  so  far  as  the 
substance  of  the  succession  is  concerned.  If  Urban  was  the  lawfully 
elected  Pontiff,  Clement  certainly  was  not ;  2l\\i\  vice  versa.  The  line  of 
Roman  Pontiffs  remained  unbroken  in  either  hypothesis.  The  doubt 
affected  persons,  but  not  the  thing  itself.  The  objection  then  falls  to  the 
ground ;  and  the  boasted  argument,  alleged  by  the  enemies  of  the  papal 
succession,  will  not  bear  the  slightest  test  of  logic. 

Still  more  puerile  is  the  objection  against  the.  succession,  based  on  the 
fact,  that  for  about  seventy  years  the  Popes  resided  at  Avignon.  During 

1  Quoted  ubuTe. 


ROME  AND  AVIGNON. 


187 


all  this  period,  they  were  universally  recognized,  and  they  constantly 
acted  through  their  vicars,  as  Bishops  of  Rome.  The  holding  of  an 
office  does  not  require  residence  in  the  incumbent,  when  he  can  other¬ 
wise  discharge  the  duties  annexed.  The  matter  of  residence  is  one  of 
discipline,  more  or  less  important ;  it  is  not  indispensably  connected  with 
the  episcopal  office,  much  less  can  it  affect  the  papal  succession. 

Both  these'  objections  are  predicated  on  superficial  or  erroneous  ideas 
of  the  subject.  They  will  not  bear  logical  scrutiny.  They  vanish  before 
the  first  touch  of  logic,  as  mists  before  the  rising  sun. 

Protestant  historians  are  unanimous  in  painting  the  moral  condition 
of  the  Church  as  truly  frightful  and  appalling,  during  the  continuance 
of  the  Schism.  We  do  not  deny  that  there  were,  at  that  time,  some 
grievous  abuses  and  wide-spread  disorders.  We  freely  admit,  and  we 
weep  over  these  scandals.  They  were  deplored  and  sternly  rebuked  by 
the  greatest  and  best  men  of  the  time ;  the  great  body  of  the  bishops,  and 
the  Church  at  large,  never  approved  of  them ; — no,  not  for  one  moment. 
The  various  national  synods  of  France,  and  the  councils  of  Pisa  and 
Constance,  not  only  condemned  these  evils,  but  they  adopted  wise  and 
strong  resolutions  to  remedy  them,  and  to  reform  the  Church  “in  its 
head  and  in  its  members.”  The  Church  is  surely  not  fairly  responsible 
for  scandals  which  she  deplored,  over  which  she  wept,  which  she  took 
every  possible  means  to  prevent  and  to  remove,  and  which  she  did 
effectually  abolish. 

But  every  impartial  man  will  admit  that  there  exists  much  exaggeration 
on  this  subject.  During  those  dreadful  times  men’s  minds  were  greatly 
excited,  and  their  blood  boiled  with  honest  indignation  at  the  desecration 
of  holy  things,  which  they  were  daily  called  on  to  witness.  Hence  they 
wrote  strongly,  and  often  in  a  tone  of  hyperbole  and  exaggeration.  Their 
invectiv'es  auainst  vice  and  scandal  were  commensurate  with  their  love  for 
the  Church.  Even  the  great  Gerson  often  exaggerated,  and  sometimes 
dealt  in  declamation  and  open  extravagances.  His  preceptor,  the  illustrious 
Peter  D’Ailly,  archbislwp  of  Cambray,  though  more  cool  and  judicious, 
was  likewise  occasionally  betrayed  into  ultraism.  And  as  to  persons  of 
less  intellect,  sanctity,  and  standing  in  the  Church, —  such  as  Theodoricus 
de  Niem,  Nicholas  de  Clemangis,  Leonardo  Aretino,  Cramaud,  and 
others, —  they  wrote  and  spoke  under  the  evident  influence  of  strong 
Bxcitement  and  passion.  No  one  can  open  their  works  without  coming 
vO  this  conclusion.  The  adherents  and  partisans  of  the  different  papal 
claimants  naturally  spoke  with  great  harshness  and  bitterness  of  those 
belonging  to  the  opposite  party  :  they  often  seized  upon  malicious  rumors 
and  published  them  as  facts  :  local  they  magnified  into  general  disorders  ; 
in  a  word,  their  imagination  was  fired,  and  their  passions  inflamed,  and 
their  statements  are  to  be  received  with  many  grains  of  allowance.  The 
evils  growing  out  of  the  Schism  were  bad  enough  —  they  made  them 
appear  much  worse  than  they  really  were. 

But,  exaggerated  as  is  the  history  of  those  times,  drawn  by  the  cotem- 


188 


THE  GREAT  SCHISM  Ou  XHE  WEST 


poraries  to  whom  we  have  just  alluded,  such  modern  writers  as  Bonnechose 
make  the  picture  a  hundred  fold  darker,  by  disingenuously  accumulaLing 
only  those  extracts  from  cotemporary  writers  which  portray  evils  and 
scandals,  and  studiously  leaving  out  those  which  speak  of  eminent  virtues, 
of  edifying  examples,  and  of  touching  incidents.  They  put  to  the  lips  of 
their  readers  only  the  bitterest  ingredients  —  the  very  dregs — of  the  cup 
of  history  ;  they  allow  them  to  sip  none  of  its  cooling  and  refreshing 
waters.  And  they  even  cut  up  and  garble  the  passages,  which  they 
profess  to  give  entire  and  continuous  !  M.  Bonnechose,  as  we  have 
proved,  makes  a  practice  of  doing  this. 

If  he  wished  to  tell  the  whole  truth,  and  to  be  a  historian  indeed,  why 
not  furnish  his  readers  the  facts  on  both  sides  of  the  question  ?  Why  not 
inform  them  that,  if  there  were  great  vices,  there  were  also  signal  virtues, 
during  the  Schism  ?  Why  not,  at  least,  drop  a  hint  that  there  were  great, 
and  good,  and  holy  men  and  women,  in  great  numbers  too,  and  pre-emi¬ 
nent  in  merit  and  sanctity,  during  that  whole  unfortunate  period  ?  Why 
omit  entirely  the  name  of  the  great  apostle  of  that  era, —  of  the  Paul,  and 
the  Francis  Xavier  of  the  fourteenth  century, —  of  the  great,  the  eloquent, 
the  sainted  thaumaturgus,  St.  Vincent  Ferrer  ?  Why  not  say  a  word  of 
the  holy  Catharines  and  Bridgets  ?  Why  omit  all  mention  of  many  others, 
similarly  distinguished  ? 

The  truth  is,  that  the  moral  disorders  which  prevailed  to  a  considerable 
extent  during  the  Schism,  instead  of  proving  aught  against  the  sanctity  or 
infallibility  of  the  Church,  or  against  the  authority  and  rightful  prerogatives 
of  the  papacy,  prove  precisely  the  contrary.  They  may  be  fairly  traced 
to  the  unnatural  and  anomalous  condition  of  the  Church,  growing  out  of 
the  distracted  condition  of  the  papacy,  the  great  directing  and  conservative 
principle  of  the  Christian  religion.  Had  the  papacy  not  been  divided,  had 
•t  remained  un trammeled  and  unchecked  in  its  influence,  those  disorders 
would,  in  all  probability,  never  have  occurred,  or  they  would  have  occurred 
in  a  much  milder  and  more  mitigated  form.  If  the  Church  was  so  much 
injured  by  the  crippling  of  the  papacy  during  not  quite  forty  years,  what 
would  have  been  her  condition  had  the  papacy  been  entirely  and 
permanently  destroyed  ?  And*  what  would  noio  be  her  state,  without  this 
great  conservative  element  in  her  organization  ? 

We  repeat  it,  the  moral  disorders  consequent  on  the  great  Schism  of  the 
west  present  to  our  minds  the  strongest  proof  of  the  great  utility,  nay,  of 
the  absolute  necessity,  of  the  papacy,  as  an  element  of  Church  government ! 

This  naturally  leads  us  to  notice  a  popular  objection,  or  rather  cavil, 
which  is  usually  stated  somewhat  in  this  way :  If  the  Church  could  do 
without  the  papacy  for  forty,  why  not  for  two  thousand  years  ?  The 

answer  is  very  plain.  We  deny  both  the  antecedent  and  the  conclusion, _ 

the  fact  assumed,  and  the  inference  thence  drawn. 

During  the  Scliism,  the  papacy  existed,  though  the  territory  over  which 
it  held  jurisdiction  was  divided.  All  maintained  the  necessity  of  a  visible 
head  of  the  Church,  and  of  but  one  head,  or  chief  executive  ;  hence  .the 


HOME  AND  AVIGNON. 


189 


struggles  of  the  contending  parties  for  tlie  mastery;  hence  the  continued 
efforts  of  all  the  good  to  find  some  way  of  escaping  from  the  Schism.  At 
no  period  of  the  Church’s  history  was  the  importance  and  necessity  of  the 
papacy  more  clearly  recognized  or  more  deeply  felt.  All  acknowledged 
the  obligation  of  obedience  to  the  Pope  ;  all  bowed  down  before  th^ 
principle  ;  the  only  difference  was  in  regard  to  a  matter  of  fact,  which  the 
passions  of  men  had  rendered  for  a  time  obscure. 

But  even  admit  the  antecedent, — -that  the  church  did  do  without  the 
papacy  for  forty  years, —  the  conclusion, — that  therefore  it  could  do 
without  it  for  two  thousand, —  would  not  follow.  This  is  a  fallacy,  which 
logicians  call  “  reasoning  from  particulars  to  generals  and  it  has  about 
as  much  weight  as  this  parallel  sophism  ;  A  man  may  do  without  food  for 
one  day  ;  therefore  he  may  do  without  it  for  forty  years ! 

The  same  fallacy  lurks  under  another  popular  objection,  which  we  may 
as  well  also  briefly  notice.  It  is  this  :  If  the  council  of  Constance, 
convened  and  presided  over  by  no  undoubted  Pope,  could  settle  tho 
affairs  of  the  Church  without  papal  authority,  where  is  the  need  of  tho 
papacy  at  all  ? 

We  test  the  validity  of  this  reasoning,  by  putting  a  parallel  case. 
Suppose  the  contingency  should  arise, —  and  it  is  certainly  a  possible 
case, —  that  a  presidential  election  in  our  republic  should  turn  out  to  be  of 
doubtful  issue,  and  that  each  of  the  two  great  political  parties  should 
claim  that  its  candidate  was  duly  elected.  After  much  political  agitation, 
and  various  attempts  at  adjustment,  the  matter  comes  before  congress  for 
final  adjudication.  It  is  settled,  we  further  suppose,  by  requiring  both 
the  claimants  to  resign,  and  ordering  a  new  election.  All  parties  acquiesce 
in  this  wise  arrangement,  and  the  political  schism  is  at  an  end.  Now 
suppose  further  that  some  political  wiseacre  should  rise  up,  and  cry  out : 
“  What  is  the  use  of  having  a  president  at  all  ?  If  congress  can  regulate 
affairs  without  him,  why  not  abolish  his  office  altogether.”  No  sensible 
man  would  deem  anything  more  than  a  smile  necessary  as  an  answer  to 
such  reasoning. 

Why  is  it  that  men,  usually  so  shrewd  in  temporal  matters,  become 
apparently  almost  bereft  of  the  reasoning  faculty,  when  it  is  a  question  of 
assailing  the  Catholic  Church,  and  the  papacy  ?  The  Church  and  tho 
papacy  after  having  braved  the  storms  and  revolutions  of  eighteen  centuries, 
can  surely  emerge  triumphantly  from  the  ordeal  of  such  logic  as  this  ! 
The  fact  that  the  enemies  of  the  Church  are  driven  to  use  such  arguments 
as  these,  furnishes  a  clear  evidence,  that,  even  in  their  own  estimation, 
their  cause  is  as  weak  as  that  of  the  Church  is  strong.  If  the  Church  and 
the  papacy  had  not  both  been  the  work  of  God,  they  never  could  have 
passed  through  so  many  difficulties  and  vicissitudes  unharmed. 

There  can  be  no  doubt,  that,  as  we  said  above,  the  papacy  came  out  of 
the  Schism  much  stronger  than  it  went  into  it.  It  went  into  it  trammeled 
with  political  importance,  and  worldly  grandeur,  whicli  impaired  the 
energies  and  dimmed  the  splendors  of  its  spiritual  character.  It  came  out 


190 


THE  GREAT  SCHISM  OP  THE  WEST. 


of  it  in  a  great  measure  rid  of  these  incumbrances  :  shorn  of  a  great  portion 
of  these  accidental  trappings,  but  indued,  more  strongly  than  ever,  with 
the  impenetrable  panoply  of  its  own  spiritual  strength.  Christendom  now 
revered  and  loved  it  more  than  ever  :  it  was  more  in  conformity  with  its 
i[)rimitive  type  ;  it  had  returned  to  its  original  position  in  the  world.  It 
was  tried  by  the  Schism,  as  by  a  fiery  ordeal.  It  emerged  unscathed,  and 
more  pure,  radiant,  and  vigorous  than  ever.  The  “  wood  and  stubble  ” 
of  its  earthly  pomp  and  wordly-mindedness  were  consumed  by  the  fire ; 
but  the  gold,  silver,  and  precious  stones  ”  of  its  spiritual  power  and 
heavenly  strength  yet  remained.  It  sujffered  loss  indeed,  but  itself  “  waa 
saved  yet  so  as  by  fire.*'  ^ 

1 1  Corinth,  iii,  12-16. 


X.  JOHN  HUSS  AND  THE  HUSSITES 


THE  COUNCIL  OF  CONSTANCE.* 

New  trials  lead  to  new  triumphs  of  the  Church— Character  of  John  Huss— A  traitor  in  the  camp— 

Seeking  popularity — VVickliffe  and  his  doctrines— These  necessarily  lead  to  civil  commotions _ 

Translated  into  Bohemia — University  of  Prague — The  German  and  Bohemian  students — Carthage- 
nian  hatred  of  Rome — Writers  on  Huss  and  his  disciples — Persecution  no  Catholic  tenet — Imperial 
laws  on  the  subject — What  were  the  doctrines  of  Huss?— And  what  their  influence  on  society? 
— What  means  did  he  adopt  to  spread  them? — Was  he  consistent ?— Had  he  a  fair  trial  at  Con¬ 
stance? — Was  the  council  cruel  towards  him?— Were  the  fathers  guilty  of  breach  of  faith? _ 

Keeping  faith  with  heretics— Case  of  Jerome  of  Prague — Horrible  excesses  of  the  Hussites— Ziska 
“  of  the  Cup” — Pillage,  murder,  and  sacrilege — A  horrid  martial  instrument  of  music — A  dark  and 
bloody  monument  to  the  memory  of  Huss. 

In  the  very  midst  of  the  great  western  schism  —  when  all  Christendom 
was  overspread  with  gloom  and  desolation, —  and  when,  humanly  speaking, 
the  very  existence  of  the  Church  itself  seemed  to  be  menaced ;  —  a  dark 
and  threatening  cloud  gathered  in  Bohemia,  and  soon  burst  upon  her,  in  one 
of  the  most  terrific  storms  that  she  had  ever  experienced  during  the  long 
course  of  her  history.  Torn  and  distracted  within,  she  was,  at  the  same 
time,  fiercely  assailed  by  a  bold  and  truculent  heresy  from  without ;  as  if 
Divine  Providence,  in  permitting  these  dreadful  evils  to  fall  simultaneously 
upon  her,  had  meant  to  make  trial  of  her  strength,  and  to  prove  triumph¬ 
antly  to  the  world  her  innate  stability  and  indestructibility. 

With  every  odds  against  her ;  with  her  energies  divided  and  broken ; 
with  the  papacy  —  the  great  controlling  and  conservative  element  of  her 
government  —  itself  seemingly  in  jeopardy  ;  she  was  still  to  behold  her  all- 
conquering  banner  wave  in  triumph  over  all  her  enemies,  both  external  and 
internal;  and  she  was  to  witness,  in  this  her  signal  triumph,  one  more 
conclusive  proof,  in  addition  to  the  thousand  which  her  history  had  already 
afibrded,  that  Christ  was  still  faithful  to  His  solemn  pledge, —  “  the  gates 
of  hell  SHALL  NOT  prevail  against  her.’’ 

The  annals  of  the  world  tell  of  few  men  more  remarkable  than  John 
Huss.  The  forerunner  of  Martin  Luther  and  John  Calvin,  he  united  the 
boldness  and  indomitable  energy  of  the  former,  with  the  coolness  and 
fierce  malignity  of  the  latter  ;  while  he,  perhaps,  surpassed  both  in  firmness 
and  obstinacy  of  purpose.  Born  of  poor  and  obscure  parentage,  in  the 

*An  introduction  to  “  D’Aubigne’s  History  of  the  Reformation.”  The  Reformers 
before  the  Reformation.  The  Fifteenth  century.  John  Huss  and  the  council  of 
Constance.  By  Emile  de  Bonnechose,  librarian  of  the  king  of  France,  author  of 
“  Histoire  de  France,*’  “  Histoire  Sacree,”  &c.  Translated  from  the  French  by  Camp¬ 
bell  McKenzie,  B.  A.,  Trinity  College,  Dublin.  Complete  in  one  volume,  8vo.,  pp 
199.  New  York:  Harper  &  Brother,  1844. 


191 


192 


JOHN  IIUSS  AND  THE  HUSSITES. 


» 


IT 


small  village  of  Hussinecz  jn  Bohemia,  in  the  year  1373,  we  find  him,  in 
Ills  thirtieth  year,  a  professor  in  the  famous  university  of  Prague,  confessor 
of  the  queen  of  Bohemia,  and  preacher  at  the  chapel  of  Bethlehem.* 
Bold,  energetic,  talented,  and  sprightly,  he  soon  rose  to  distinction,  and 
acquired  an  almost  unbounded  popularity.  As  professor,  he  fascinated  the 
youth  Avho  flocked  to  his  lectures  'by  the  boldness  of  his  views,  and  the 
startling  novelty  of  his  theories.  As  confessor  to  the  queen,  he  exercised 
great  influence  over  her  mind,  and  over  that  of  her  weak  and  imbecile 
husband,  Wenceslaus  ;  and  he  became  all  powerful  at  court.  As  a  popular 
preacher,  he  had  few  rivals,  and  no  superior,  in  all  Bohemia. 

Such  was  the  man  who  was  soon  to  rear  the  standard  of  revolt  against 
the  Church,  to  maintain  doctrines  subversive  of  social  order,  both  civil 
and  religious,  and  to  light  up  in  Bohemia  a  flame,  which  was  to  be  extin¬ 
guished  only  in  the  blood  of  thousands  of  its  citizens  !  Had  he  continued 
faithful  to  the  truth ;  had  he  devoted  his  life  and  talents  to  the  cause  of 
religion  and  social  order ;  had  he  studied  to  allay,  instead  of  exciting,  the 
elements  of  discord  already  fermenting  in  the  minds  of  men,  and  especially 
in  those  of  his  fierce  and  semi-barbarous  countrymen,  he  might  have  been 
one  of  the  brightest  ornaments  of  his  age  and  nation,  and  one  of  the  strongest 
pillars  of  the  Church.  As  a  priest  of  the  Catholic  Church,  he  had,  at  the 
holy  altar,  solemnly  plighted  his  faith  to  become,  and  to  continue  her 
advocate  and  faithful  champion  until  death  :  —  her  cause  was  his  cause  ; 
her  truth  his  truth  ;  her  joys  were  his  joys  ;  and  her  sorrows  his  sorrows. 
If  ever  she  needed  a  champion,  now  was  that  time  ;  if  ever  she  needed  a 
comforter  in  her  grief,  this  was  the  season. 

But  alas  !  instead  of  comforting  her,  and  laboring  to  assuage  her  grief,  in 
this  the  most  bitter  hour  of  her  affliction,  this  sworn  minister  of  her  altars, 
who  had  broken  bread  with  her  in  unity  and  in  .sweetness  of  communion, 
now  basely  deserted  her,  and  treacherously  lifted  up  his  heel  against  her 
holy  sanctuary  !  He  preferred  the  ephemeral  popularity  attending  the 
advocacy  of  bold  and  startling  novelties,  to  that  less  brilliant  and  enticing, 
but  more  solid  and  permanent  glory,  which  results  from  the  humble,  and 
unostentatious  championship  of  old  and  uninviting,  but  wholesome  truths. 
Like  many  other  men  of  great  talent  and  genius,  but  seduced  by  secret 
pride,  he  preferred  the  fame  which  attaches  to  the  founder  of  a  new  sect, 
to  that  which  he  might  have  acquired  by  pursuing  the  even  tenor  of  his 
way,  and  doing  much  good,  in  a  quiet  manner,  in  the  venerable  old  paths 
of  truth,  marked  out  and  hallowed  by  the  footsteps  of  his  sainted  forefathers 
in  the  faith. 

He  wished,  in  a  word,  to  become  in  Bohemia,  what  Wicklifte  had  so 
recently  been  in  England.  The  bold  English  reformer  —  the  redoubtable 
captain  of  the  Lollards, —  had  died  quietly  and  in  peace^  in  the  year  1384, 
in  his  own  rectory  of  Lutterworth ;  but,  in  dying,  he  had  bequeathed  a 

1  Founded  in  the  year  1391  by  two  wealthy  citizens  of  Prague,  Johann  Von  Muhlheim  and  th« 
merchant  Kreuz  ;  and  destined  especially  for  the  preaching  of  the  gospel  to  the  poor. 

2  In  spite  of  ail  the  alleged  cruelty  and  persecuting  spirit  of  the  Catholic  Church. 


TUB  COUNCIL  OF  CONSTANCE. 


193 


fatal  legacy  to  posterity  in  his  writings.’  These  abounded  with  virulent 
attacks  upon  the  ministry,  doctrines,  and  institutions  of  the  Catholic 
Church,  —  of  which  Wicklifte  was  nevertheless  a  priest, — and  with  prin¬ 
ciples  as  new  as  they  were  pernicious. 

Many  of  his  assertions  were  downright  blasphemies  against  the  Deity; 
such  as  those  of  his  propositions  which  asserted  absolute  predestination  and 
fatality,  and,  among  the  rest,  this  atrocious  one —  “  God  ought  to  obey  the 
devil !  Many  of  them  consisted  of  bitter  and  baseless  tirades  auainstthe 
clergy  and  the  Popes  :  such  as  that  which  designated  “  the  Roman  Clmrch 
a  synagogue  of  Satan  and  those  which  stigmatized  as  lieretics,  all  cler¬ 
gymen  who  held  any  species  of  property,  as  well  as  tliose  who  bestowed  it 
on  them. ^  Others  railed  against  the  monastic  orders  as  “  diabolical  and 
unchristian  and  against  colleges  and  universities,  as  “pagan  in  their 
origin”  and  “devilish”  in  their  tendencies.®  Others,  in  fine,  openly 
broached  and  defended  doctrines  directly  subversive  of  all  social  order,  both 
in  Church  and  state  ;  such  as  those  which  maintained  that  a  bishop  and  a 
civil  magistrate  lost  all  power  and  jurisdiction,  the  moment  they  fell  into 
grievous  sin  This  last  may  be  reckoned  the  distinctive  doctrine  of  Wick- 
iiflfe’s  whole  system  ;  the  one  to  which  the  civil  commotions  and  bloodshed 
subsequently  caused  by  his  disciples,  the  Lollards,  are  fairly  traceable. 

Such  were  the  leading  features  of  that  iniquitous  system,  which  was  now 
to  be  transplanted  from  England  into  Bohemia,  and  to  produce  in  tlie  latter 
country  the  same  bitter  and  poisonous  fruits  which  it  had  brought  forth  in 
the  former.  A  noble  Bohemian,  Jerome  Faulfish,  more  commonly  known 
as  Jerome  of  Prague,  had  visited  the  famous  university  of  Oxford,  in 
England,  for  the  purpose  of  completing  his  education.  There  he  became 
acquainted  with  the  writings  of  Wicklifte,  which  he  perused  with  avidity 
and  delight.  On  his  return  to  Bohemia,  about  tlie  year  1402,  he  brought 
several  copies  of  them  with  him,  and  busily  circulated  them  among  the 
professors  and  students  of  the  university  of  Prague.  Thoroughly  imbued 
himself  with  the  doctrines  of  the  English  apostate,  he  labored  with 
unremitting  zeal  to  infuse  his  own  convictions  into  the  minds  of  others.. 
He  succeeded  but  too  well  in  his  purpose  ! 

The  university  of  Prague  was  divided  and  thrown  into  confusion.  A 
rivalry  had  long  existed  in  its  halls  between  the  German  professors  and 
students,  and  those  of  Bohemia  :  but  hitherto  the  Germans  had  maintained 
the  ascendency,  both  in  numbers  and  in  influence.  The  tables  were  now 
turned.  John  Huss  adopted  and  defended  with  great  vigor  the  doctrines 
of  Wicklifte,  and  was  soon  followed  by  nearly  all  the  Bohemians  belonging 
to  the  university  ;  the  Germans  as  ardently  maintained  the  old  principles 
of  religion  and  philosophy,  and  denounced  the  new  opinions  as  both 

1  The  wor.st  of  these  was  his  Trialogus,  written  after  his  retirement  from  Oxford  to  Lutterworth, 
and  shortly  before  his  death.  It  embodies,  in  the  form  of  a  conference  among  three  persons,  all  his 
virulence,  all  his  distinctive  doctrines,  and  all  the  worst  features  of  his  system. 

2  Deus  debet  obedire  diabolo.  —  Prop,  vi,  among  those  condemned  by  the  council  of  Con.stance. 

3  Prop,  xxxvii,  ibid.  4  Prop,  xxxvi.  6  Prop,  xxiii  and  xxxi.  6  Prop.  xxix. 

7  Prop.  XV,  Nuliu*  est  dominus  civilis,  nullus  est  prmlatus,  nullus  est  episcopus,  dum  est  in< 
peccatomortali. 

V 


16 


194 


JOHN  HUSS  AND  THE  HUSSITES. 


heretical  and  ruinous  in  their  tendency.  Novelty,  however,  gained  the 
day ;  the  Germans  were  expelled  from  the  university,  John  Huss  and  his 
adherents  became  supreme  therein,  and  tliey  were  thus  enabled  to  teach 
and  to  spread  their  new-fangled  notions,  almost  without  opposition.* 

The  infection  soon  spread  throughout  Bohemia.  The  ignorant  and  the 
vicious  were  pleased  with  the  new  doctrines,  and  were  fascinated  with  the 
boldness  and  eloquence  of  the  man  who  poured  forth,  in  his  own  chapel 
of  Bethlehem,  and  throughout  the  kingdom,  his  coarse  and  withering 
invectives  against  the  Popes,  the  bishops,  and  the  clergy.  The  standard 
of  revolt  was  now  raised ;  and  all  Bohemia  was  in  a  flame.  The  dreadful 
sequel  is  but  too  well  known. 

It  is  fashionable  with  such  writers  as  M.  Bonnechose  to  praise  extrav¬ 
agantly,  and  to  exalt  even  to  the  skies,  men  who, — like  John  Huss, — 
fiercely  opposed  the  Catholic  Church,  and  raised  altar  against  altar.  We 
are  not  at  all  surprised  at  this.  Men  naturally  sympathize  with  those  of 
a  kindred  spirit.  No  matter  how  wicked  the  founders  of  new  sects  may 
have  been  ;  no  matter  how  reckless,  inconsistent,  and  unprincipled ;  no 
matter  what  commotion  they  excited,  what  hatred  they  stirred  up,  what 
torrents  of  blood  they  caused  to  flow  ;  if  they  only  opposed  Rome,  all  their 
iniquities  are  at  once  forgiven  and  forgotten,  and  they  are  painted  as 
saints,  as  heroes,  as  martyrs,  as  men  who  preferred  the  voice  of  their 
conscience  to  all  the  smiles  of  the  Church  and  of  the  world  !  This  fierce 
and  more  than  Carthagenian  hatred  of  Rome,  like  the  mantle  of  charity^ 
covers  a  multitude  of  sins.  John  Huss  and  Jerome  of  Prague  are 
represented  as  men  entirely  in  advance  of  their  age  ;  as  men  who  had  the 
courage  to  rebuke  the  vices  and  errors  of  a  corrupt  and  all-powerful 
^church ;  as  men  who  fell  victims  to  their  noble  zeal  and  integrity,  and  to 
the  vengeance  of  the  hierarchy  ! 

M.  Bonnechose  evidently  follows  the  accounts  most  favorable  to  Huss 
and  the  Hussites.^  If  he  examined  at  all  the  authorities  on  the  other  side, 
his  readers  are  in  a  great  measure  deprived  of  the  fruits  of  his  researches. 
If  he  sometimes  quotes  JEneas  Sylvius  and  John  Cochloeus,  it  is  rather  to 
keep  up  a  semblance  of  impartiality,  or  to  confirm  some  statement  in  favor 

1  We  have  gathered  these  particulars  from  a  distinguished  cotemporary,  Sylvius  —  His- 

toria  Bohemorum,  c.  35  He  says  that  the  Bohemians  were  then  “  by  nature  ferocious  and 
indomitable  —  natura  ferocibus  atque  iiidoinitis.'’  Ho  adds  that  Wickliffe’s  new  doctrines  were 
spread  by  Huss,  chiefly  with  a  view  to  vex  the  German  professors,  and  to  oust  the  Germans  from  the 
university  —  “  Wyclevitarum  doctrinam  arripuit  eaque  Teutonicos  vexare  magistros  coepit,fperan8 
eo  coiifusos  Teutones  scholas  relicturos.” 

2  The  chief  authorities  on  the  history  of  John  IIuss  and  the  Hussites  are  the  following  :  In  favor 
of  John  Huss,  a  voluminous  work,  composed  by  an  a7io7iy7noM5  Hussite,  and  entitled:  Historia  et 
monunienta  Jo.  Huss  atque  Ilierouymi  Pragensis  —  Norimbergse  :  1715,  tom.  ii,  in  folio.  This  work 
is  a  special  favorite  with  M.  Bonnechose,  who  quotes  it  on  all  occasions.  Against  IIuss ;  jEnece 
Sylvii  —  De  Bohemorum  origine  ac  gestis  historia,  (llomee  :  1475,  fol.),  especially  chaps.  35  and  36  ; 
and  Johannes  Cochleeus  —  Historia  Hussitarum,  Libri  xii.  (Moguntiae  :  1549,  folio.)  To  these  add 

'a  host  of  more  recent  writers,  especially  in  Germany,  chiefly  in  favor  of  Huss  ;  such  as  Theobaldus— 
De  Bello  Hussitarum,  in  4ti>  ;  Wilhelmi  Seyfridi  —  Do  Jo.  Huss  martyris  vita,  fatis,  ac  scriptis, 
Jenae  :  1729,  etc.  \  J  F.  W.  Fischer,  life  of  Jerome  of  Prague,  and  Zitte’s  life  of  Huss,  both  written 
in  German.  See  also  Lahbcri  Concilia — Concil.  Constant.;  Hardt  —  Constant  Concilium,  &c.,  vl 

tom.  folio;  U Enfant  —  Ilistoiro  du  Concile  de  Constance,  tom.  ii ;  and  Castenet _ Nouvelle  Hist 

duConcile  de  Constance,  Paris  :  1718,  4to. 


,THB  COUNCIL  OP  UONSTANCE. 


195 


of  Huss,  than  to  exhibit  fairly  and  fully  the  facts  and  evidence  on  both 
sides.  When  his  favorite  partisan  work  —  “  the  History  and  Monuments 
of  John  Huss  and  Jerome  of  Prague,”  —  fails  him,  he  calls  in  to  his  aid 
dhe  veracious  John  Fox,  the  English  martyrologist,  whom  he  quotes  with 
as  much  complacency,  as  if  he  had  been  a  cotemporary  historian,  and  as 
if  he  had  never  written  accounts  of  the  cruel  deaths  and  martyrdom  of 
living  men.  Such  is  the  general  character  of  M.  Bonnechose’s  work, 
which,  with  some  pretensions  to  erudition  and  impartiality,  is  aproduction 
as  thoroughly  partisan  as  ever  was  written.  We  think  no  candid  man 
who  reads  it,  and  compares  its  statements  with  those  of  the  original 
historians,  can  come  to  *ny  other  conclusion. 

We  are  sincerely  opposed  to  all  persecution.  Catholics  have  been  too 
long  and  too  cruelly  the  victims  of  it,  to  relish  it ;  no  matter  by  what 
specious  reasoning  or  pretext  its  advocates  may  have  sought  to  palliate  or 
justify  it  in  any  particular  case.  The  sentence  of  death  pronounced  and 
executed  on  John  Huss  and  Jerome  of  Prague  was  much  more  the  result 
of  the  spirit  of  the  times  in  which  the  deed  was  done,  than  of  that  of  the 
Church:  it  was  the  consequence  of  imperial,  rather  than  of  ecclesiastical, 
enactments.  All  this  we  hope  to  make  appear  in  the  sequel,  by  such  a 
mass  of  evidence  as  the  candid  inquirer  can  neither  resist  nor  answer. 

The  Catholic  Church  has  never  persecuted,  as  a  Church,  for  mere 
conscience  sake.  She  has,  indeed,  at  all  times  freely  and  fearlessly 
exercised  her  undoubted  prerogative  of  proclaiming  the  truth,  and  of 
stigmatizing  error  ;  of  witnessing  and  authoritatively  pronouncing  on  the 

faith  once  delivered  to  the  saints.”  She  had  been  instituted  for  this 
express  purpose  ;  and  well  and  fully  has  she  fulfilled  her  mission.  Ko 
-matter  how  adverse  the  circumstances  under  which  she  labored  ■  no 
matter  what  clouds  und  storms  gathered  around  her  pathway  ;  she  was,  at 
all  times,  too  thoroughly  imbued  with  the  meek  and  humble  spirit  of  her 
divine  Founder  and  Spouse,  to  call  down  fire  on  the  heads  of  her  enemies. 
She  could  suffer  without  a  murmur  ;  she  could  not  witness,  much  less 
inflict  suffering  on  others,  without  a  pang.  Her  whole  history  through 
eighteen  long  centuries,  if  impartially  examined  and  fairly  stated,  will  fully 
bear  out  this  view  of  the  subject. 

Nor  does  the  case  of  John  Huss  and  Jerome  of  Prague  constitute  an 
exception  to  this  general  remark.  Their  melancholy  death,  as  we  have 
already  intimated,  was  the  result  of  imperial  laws,  not  of  Church  decisions. 
It  was  the  emperor  Sigismund,  and  not  the  fathers  of  the  council  of 
Constance,  who  sentenced  them  to  death.  The  council  merely  condemned 
'the  doctrines  of  Huss,  ordered  the  books  containing  them  to  be  burnt,*  and 
deposed  him  from  the  ministry  as  an  unworthy  and  heretical  priest  p  it  was 
the  emperor  Sigismund  who  condemned  him  to  death,  in  accordance  with 
the  settled  law  of  the  Germanic  empire. 

1  Those  who  affect  to  he  .“caiidiilized  at  this  are  referred  to  the  example  of  Sfc.  Paul,  who  caused  a 
multitude  of  bad  books  to  be  burnt  at  Cphesus  —  Acts,  eh.  xix. 

2  M.  Bounechose  himself  is  forced  virtually  to  grant  this.  See  pi.  102,  where  ho  gives  the 
eubstanca  of  the  two  sentences  pronounced  by  the  council. 


196 


JOHN  HUSS  AND  THE  HUSSITES. 


Even  M.  Bonnecbose,  bow  much  soever  be  strives  to  implicate  tbe' 
council,'  is  still  constrained  to  admit  this.  He  tells  us  that  tbe  emperor, 
at  the  close  of  Huss’s  examination  before  the  council,  irritated  at  the 
obstinacy  of  the  man,  whom  neither  he  nor  the  council  could  induce  to 
retract,  thus  addressed  the  assembled  fathers  in  his  presence  : 

“You  have  heard  the  errors  which  this  man  has  taught  —  many  of 
which  are  crimes  deserving  of  the  severest  punishment.  My  opinion, 
therefore,  is,  that,  unless  he  abjures  everyone  of  them,  he  ought  to  be 

burned  to  death . If  any  of  his  followers  should  happen  to  be  at 

Constance,  they  ought  also  to  be  severely  put  down,  and  chiefly,  amongst 
them  all,  his  disciple  Jerome.” 

As  we  shall  see  in  a  passage  to  be  cited  hereafter,  he  had  pronounced 
a  similar  opinion  at  the  opening  of  the  examination. 

For  nearly  two  hundred  years  before  the  council  of  Constance,  it  had 
been  a  settled  and  organic  law  of  the  Germanic  empire,  that  heresy  was 
punishable  with  death.  At  the  famous  convention  held  at  Roncaglia,  in 
Italy,  in  the  year  1 158,  the  emperor  Frederic  Barbarossa  had  revived  the 
provisions  of  tlie  old  Roman  imperial  laws,  as  modified  and  acted  on  by 
the  first  Christian  emperors.  He  had  revived  them  with  all  their  abso¬ 
lutism  and  all  their  persecuting  spirit.  His  grandson,  Frederic  II,  went 
still  farther.  In  the  year  1 244,  he  added  specific  and  terrible  laws  against 
heretics.  In  the  new  code,  blasphemy  and  heresy  were  put  on  a  level  with 
high  treason  ;  and,  like  it,  were  to  be  punished  with  death.  It  was  thought 
by  the  law  that  heresy  was  rebellion  and  high  treason  against  heaven  ;  and 
that  a  man  who  was  a  traitor  to  his  God,  could  not  be  a  faithful  subject  to 
his  earthly  sovereign. 

The  Church  had  at  least  no  direct  agency  in  enacting  this  odious  code. 
She  seems  to  have  merely  acquiesced  in  its  enactment.  She  could  not,  in 
fact,  have  well  done  otherwise  ;  for  the  two  Frederics  were  men  of  stern  and 
inflexible  resolve;  —  tyrants  whom  no  influence  could  either  tame  or  control. 
During  the  time  of  the  early  Christian  emperors,  the  Church  had  often 
been  herself  the  victim  of  a  similar  stern  and  grasping  legislation.  She 
had  seen  her  best  Pontiff's  and  bishops  dragged  into  exile,  and  condemned 
to  death  by  the  iron  will  of  imperial  tyrants,  who  took  it  upon  themselves 
to  decide  what  was  truth,  and  what  was  heresy,  and  to  enforce  their  decision 
with  terrible  penalties.^ 

The  condemnation  to  death,  then,  of  John  Huss  and  Jerome  of  Prague 
at  Constance,  was  no  new  thing.  It  was  done  in  accordance  with  a  settled 
principle  of  law,  long  established  and  generally  recognized.  No  one 
questioned  its  existence,  or  doubted  its  justice,  either  at  tliat  time,  or  for 
many  centuries  afterwards  ;  not  even  those  who  fell  victims  to  its  exercise. 
All  the  early  reformers  adopted  and  defended  the  self  same  principle  ;  and 

1  Many  of  his  assertions  on  this  subject  need  confirmation,  other  than  his  own  bare  word,  and 
that  of  his  partial  authorities.  2  P.  96. 

S  Witness  the  cases  of  the  Pontiffs  Liberius,  Silrerins  and  St.  Martin  L;  and  of  the  holv  prelates, 
St.  lillary,  of  Poictiers;  Ste  Athanasius,  of  Alexandria;  St,  John  Chrysostom,  of  Constantinople,  and 
of  many  others. 


THE  COUNCIL  OF  CONSTANCE. 


197 


the  punishment  by  death  at  tlie  sbike,  for  heresy,  was  retained  in  Protestant 
England  longer  than  in  any  other  country  in  the  world.* 

Even  John  Huss  himself,  as  we  shall  show  more  fully  in  the  sequel,  was 
not  only  well  aware  of  the  existence  of  this  law,  ere  he  departed  from 
Prague  for  Constance,  but  he  freely -consented  to  be  judged  by  it,  and  to 
abide  its  penalty,  if  convicted  of  heresy.  At  Constance  itself,  on  being 
accused  of  having  denied  its  justice,  he  repelled  the  accusation,  and  only 
remarked  :  “the  heretic  cannot  be  corporeally  punished,  until  after  he  has 
been  charitably  instructed,  by  means  of  arguments  drawn  from  Scrip¬ 
ture  a  qualification  which,  with  the  exception  of  its  implying  the  right 
of  private  interpretation  in  opposition  to  Church  authority,  few  would  have 
felt  disposed  to  question,  even  in  that  stern  age.  The  Church  may,  then,  say 
in  reference  to  the  death  of  Huss  and  Jerome  :  —  Non  mea  culpa  est,  sed 
temporum.  It  was  not  her  fault  that  they  died  at  the  stake  ;  the  sacrifice 
was  made  in  accordance  with  the  jurisprudence  of  the  age. 

But  before  we  can  subscribe  to  the  opinion  that  Huss  was  a  saint  and  a 
martyr,  and  that  the  council  of  Constance  acted  a  cruel  and  treacherous 
part  by  him,  we  must  have  more  evidence  than  the  bare  word  of  such 
flippant  writers  as  M.  Bonnechose,  and  the  partisan  historians  whom  he 
quotes.  We  must  go  into  the  whole  merits' of  the  case,  and  examine  the 
following  previous  questions : 

1st.  What  were  the  doctrines  of  John  Huss,  and  what  were  their  effects 
on  society  ? 

2d.  What  means  did  he  adopt  to  spread  them  ? 

3d.  Was  he  always  equally  bold  in  avowing,  and  consistent  in  maintain¬ 
ing  them  ? 

4th.  Had  he  a  fair  trial  at  Constance  ? 

5Lh.  Did  the  council  act  with  wanton  cruelty  in  his  regard? 

And  6th.  Was  the  council  guilty  of  perfidy  and  treachery  towards  him? 

We  shall  endeavor  briefly  and  succinctly,  but,  we,  hope,  clearly  and 
satisfactorily,  to  answer  all  these  questions.  And  we  will  assert  nothing 
which  cannot  be  clearly  proved  from  undoubted  and  original  sources, 
cotemporary  with  the  events  themselves. 

I.  What  were  the  doctrines  of  John  Huss,  and  what  were  their  effects 
on  so(dety  ? 

His  doctrines  were  the  same  as  those  of  Wickliffe,  of  which  we  have 
already  spoken ;  with  this  important  difterence,  however,  that  the  Bohemian- 
does  not  appear  to  have  gone  so  far  as  the  English  reformer.  Huss 
admitted  to  the  day  of  his  death  many  distinctive  doctrines  of  Catholicity 
which  Wickliffe  had  rejected  :  such  as  the  real  presence,  the  sacrifice  of 
the  mass,  the  power  of  granting  indulgences,  and  some  others.  But,  in  all 
other  respects,  he  seems  to  have  agreed  almost  entirely  with  Wickliffe, 
though  he  was,  perhaps,  less  furious,  and  more  cautious,  in  expressing  his 
opinions,  than  the  bluff  and  sour  Englishman.  Like  him,  he  railed  inces- 

1  Instances  of  this  cruel  punishment  occur  iii  England  as  late  as  the  reign  of  George  the  I, !  See 
PJetirher’s  notes  to  De  Maistre’s  “Letters on  the  Spanish  Inquisition.” 

2  Bonnechose.  p.  94. 

V2 


198 


JOHN  HUSS  AND  THE  HUSSITES. 


santly  against  the  Popes,  the  bishops,  the  clergy,  the  religious  orders;  like 
him,  he  maintained  the  doctrine  of  absolute  predestination ;  like  him,  he 
believed  that  none  but  the  elect  belonged  or  could  belong  to  the  Church 
of  Christ ;  like  him,  he  maintained  that  it  was  unlawful  for  the  clergy  to 
liold  property  of  any  kind;  like  him,  he  denied  the  infallibility  of  the 
Church ;  and,  like  him,  he  asserted  the  ruinous  principle, —  ruinous  to  all 
social  organization,  whether  political  or  religious, —  that  the  circumstance 
of  a  temporal  or  spiritual  ruler  being  in  the  state  of  mortal  sin,  deprived 
him,  by  the  very  fact,  of  all  power  and  jurisdiction.* 

He  also  openly  denied  the  power  of  the  Church  to  excommunicate  or  to 
suspend  her  ministers,  and  boldly  defended  the  disorganizing  doctrine, 
that  a  priest  thus  excommunicated,  provided  he  believed  the  sentence 
unjust,  could  still  continue  to  exercise  his  functions,  in  spite  of  the  prohi¬ 
bition  by  the  ecclesiastical  tribunal.  He  more  than  once  intimated  that 
St.  Peter  never  had  been  the  head  of  the  Church  ;  that  the  Roman  Pon¬ 
tiffs  had  derived  their  supremacy  from  the  Caesars  ;  and  that  there  was  no 
need  of  a  visible  head  of  the  Church  on  earth.  That  such  were  the  dis¬ 
tinctive  doctrines  of  Huss,  we  think  no  one  who  has  at  all  read  the  orio-inal 
documents  will  be  disposed  to  deny.^ 

Who  can  wonder,  that  doctrines  so  thoroughly  disorganizing  should 
have  produced  the  most  disastrous  effects  on  society  ?  Who  can  wonder 
that  Prague  soon  became  the  theatre  of  bitter  contentions,  of  civil  com- 
mbtions,  of  infuriate  mobs,  of  bloodshed  ?  Who  can  wonder  that  all 
Bohemia  was  thrown  into  convulsions ;  that  its  hills  and  valleys  were 
crimsoned  with  the  blood  of  its  own  citizens  ;  that  a  civil  war,  the  most 
obstinate  and  bloody,  perhaps,  recorded  in  the  annals  of  history,  tore 
and  lacerated  its  bosom,  and  sent  tens  of  thousands  of  its  citizens  to 
the  tomb?  ' 

-  All  these  terrible  disasters  were  as  natural  and  necessary  results  of  the 
preaching  and  doctrines  of  John  Huss,  as  fruits  are  of  the  tree  which  bears 
them,  or  as  smouldering  ruins  are  of  the  dreadful  conflagration.  John  Huss 
enkindled  a  flame  in  the  bosom  of  his  country,  which  preyed  on  its  very 
vitals,  and  threatened  it  with  utter  annihilation,  for  long  years  after  he 
was  himself  no  more ! 

That  Huss  was  a  bold  and  turbulent  spirit ;  that  his  doctrines  naturally 
tended  to  insubordination,  revolt,  and  sedition ;  and  that  he  not  only  took  no 
■precautions  to  check  this  sinister  tendency,  but  encouraged  it  father,  and 
fanned  the  flame  of  popular  excitement,  we  think  no  candid  man  will  denv. 
That  the  effects  indicated  above  did  follow  his  preaching  and  doctrine, 
even  M.  Bonnechose,  his  most  ardent  and  unscrupulous  champion,  fully 

1  See  ttie  propositions  extracted  from  the  works  of  Huss  and  condemed  by  the  Council  of  Con* 
stance  ;  —  not  as  M,  Bonnechose  gires  them  on  the  authority  of  Fox  (!)  —  but  as  they  are  recorded 
in  the  acts  of  the  council  itself ;  especially  Propositions  i,  ii,  v,  xxi,  and  xxx.  See  also  Bonnechose, 
p.  91,  where  he  tells  &  part  of  the  truth  in  regard  to  the  doctrines  of  Huss. 

2  See  the  propositions,  in  loco  sup.  cit.  M.  Bonnechose  admits  that  Hus.s  advocated  most  of  those 
doctrines;  but  his  account  is  often  very  vague  and  inaccurate.  Instead  of  giving  us,  in  one  place, 
a  well-dige.'Sted  summary  of  the  doctrines  of  Huss.  he  scatters  the  account  of  them  througnout  the 
book  ;  and  he  evidently  seeks  to  disguise  or  conceal  their  very  worst  features. 


THE  COUNCIL  OF  CONSTANCE. 


199 


admits.  We  will  allege  a  few  facts  and  passages  from  his  work  to  illustrate 
this  branch  of  the  subject. 

Sbinko,  the  archbishop  of  Prague,  the  declared  opponent  of  Huss  and 
of  his  doctrines,  had  perished  by  poison  ;  and  a  rumor  was  already  afloat 
in  the  community,  that  he  had  come  to  his  death  through  the  malice  of  the 
Hussites.  Our  author  assures  us  that  this  report  was  unfounded  in  fact ; 
but  he  speaks  'of  the  excitement  which  raged  at  Prague,  about  this  time, 
in  the  following  language  ; — 

“  But,  at  Prague,  the  question  no  longer  was  to  clear  up  a  fact,  which 
could  be  to  one  party  a  deep  disgrace,  and  to  the  other  a  motive  of  ven¬ 
geance  ;  the  Jlames  of  civil  war  were  gathering  at  the  bottom  of  men's 
hearts,  and  the  rage  of  parties  no  longer  required  a  real  cause  for  bursting 
forth,  but  only  a  pretext.  It  was  impossible  not  to  acknowledge  the  moral 
authority, —  the  very  serious  ascendency,—  which  John  Huss  had  acquired 
over  men’s  minds  ;  for  no  longer  were  the  caprices  of  fashion,  or  an  incon¬ 
siderate  infatuation,  sufficient  to  gain  over  partisans  or  disciples  for  his 
doctrines,”  &c.‘  , 

■  i 

This  tremendous  excitement  between  the  two  hostile  parties,  composed 
of  the  friends  and  opponents  of  John  Huss  at  Prague,  soon  broke  out  into 
open  sedition,  filled  the  streets  with  mobs  and  desolation,  and  drenched 
them  w;itli  blood  !  Huss  had  been  compelled  to  fly,  but  he  now  returned, 
and  placed  himself,  with  renewed  vigor  and  deternaination,  at  the  head  of 
Jiis  partisans.  ,  The  magistrates  of  the  city,  foreseeing  the  coming  troubles, 
besought  him  to  desist ;  but  they  besought  in  vain. 

“The  magistrates  of  Prague,”  says  our  author,  “blamed  John  Huss, 
and  joined  with  the  heads  of  the  university,  the  court,  and  the  clergy 
against  him.  So  many  elements  of  discord,”  he  continues,  “portended 
fresh  troubles  of  a  more  serious  character  than  those  which  had  already 
caused  the  voluntary  exile  of  Huss,  but  no  apprehension  shook  his 
resolution.”  ^ 

With  his  characteristic  obstinacy  he  persisted,  and  he  could  not  be 
turned  from  his  course,  either  by  expostulation  or  by  apprehension  of  the 
dreadful  consequences  about  to  ensue.  He  put  up  placards  on  the  doors 
of  the  churches  and  monasteries  of  Prai»ue,  challenaiiiir  all  doctors, 

O  ^  ^  O  O  ' 

priests,  monks,  and  scholars  to  a  public  discussion.  We  will  transcribe 
M.  Bonnechose’s  account  of  what  passed  at  this  discussion  : 

“  On  the  appointed  day,  the  concourse  was  prodigious  ;  and  the  rector; 
in  alarm,  endeavored,  though  in  vain,  to  dissolve  the  assembly.  A  doctor 
of  canon  law  stood  up  and  delivered  a  defense  of  the  Pope  and  the  bulls : 
then,  falling  on  John  Huss,  he  said, —  ‘  you  are  a  priest;  you  are  subor¬ 
dinate  to  the  Pope,  wiio  is  your  spiritual  father.  It  is  only  filthy  birds 
which  defile  their  own  nests  ;  and  Ham  was  accursed  for  having  uncovered 
his  father’s  shame.’  At  these  words  the  people  murmured  and  were  in 
great  commotion.  Already  were  stones  beginning  to  fly,  when  John  Huss 
interfered  and  calmed  the  storm.  After  him  the  impetuous  Jerome  of 

t 

1  I’.  36  The  real  authors  of  the  death  of  Archbishop  Sbinko  are  uti known.  It  wag  natural, 
however,  thar  suspicion  should  have  rested  on  the  disciples  of  lluss,  of  whom  ho  was  au  opcu  and' 
declared  adversary.  2  1’  41.  ' 


200 


JOHN  HUSS  AND  THE  HUSSITES. 


Prague  addressed  the  multitude,  and  terminated  a  vehement  harangue 
with  these  words  : —  ‘  Let  those  who  are  our  friends  unite  with  us  ;  Huss 
and  I  are  going  to  the  palace,  and  we  will  let  the  vanity  of  those  indul¬ 
gences  be  seen.’  ”  * 

In  short, —  not  to  multiply  quotations  which  would  take  up  too  much 
of  our  space, — John  Huss  and  Jerome  of  Prague  placed  themselves  at 
the  head  of  a  tumultuous  rnobj  filled  the  city  with  confusion,  openly  defied 
the  authorities  ;  and,  as  if  to  make  this  mob  more  like  that  which  lately 
disgraced  one  of  our  eastern  cities,  desecrated  the  Sunday  by  marching, 
with  arms  in  their  hands,  on  that  day,  to  the  town-house  to  demand  the 
pardon  of  three  rioters,  who,  having  been  arrested  by  the  authorities,  were 
there  confined.  On  the  appearance  of  John  Huss  with  his  formidable  mob 
at  the  prison  gates, 

“  The  mao-istrates  deliberated  in  trouble  and  consternation,  and  the 
council  replied,  in  the  name  of  all  :  ‘  Dear  master,  we  are  astonished  at 
your  lighting  up  a  fire,  in  which  jou  run  the  risk  of  being  burned 
yourself.  It  is  very  hard  for  us  to  pardon  persons  who  do  not  even  spam 
the  sanctuary,  who  fill  the  city  with  tumult,  and  who,  if  not  prevented, 
would  stain  our  streets  with  slaughter.  Nevertheless,  keep  the  people 
within  bounds,  and  withdraw :  your  wishes  shall  be  attended  to.’  ”  ^ 

But  when  the  rioters  had  withdrawn  at  the  bidding  of  Huss,  the 
magistrates  thought  proper  to  break  a  promise  extorted  from  them  by 
threats  and  fear ;  and  the  prisoners  were  executed.  When  the  mob 
became  acquainted  with  this  fact, 

“  A  furious  tumult  arose.  The  doors  of  the  prison  were  burst  open,  the 
bodies  taken  off,  and  transported  in  linen  shrouds  under  the  vault  of  the 
chapel  of  Bethlehem.  They  were  there  interred  with  great  honors,  the 
scholars  singing  in  chorus  over  their  tomb, —  ‘  They  are  saints  who  have 
given  up  their  bodies  for  the  gospel  of  God.’  ”  ^ 

Huss  was  the  ringleader  in  all  these  tumultuous  and  lawless  scenes  : 
and  he  even  pronounced  the  eulogy  of  these  ruffian  rioters  and  convicted 
felons,  whom  he  styled  “saints  and  martyrs.”'*  On  that  memorable 
occasion,  in  the  midst  of  the  most  tremendous  popular  excitement,  he,  a 
minister  of  the  God  of  peace,  fanned  the  flame,  by  pronouncing  a  most 
furious  tirade  of  abuse  and  invective  ag-ainst  the  Popes,  the  clergy,  and 
the  Church.^  The  result  was  awful ;  mob  violence  ruled  supreme  and 
uncontrolled  in  the  hitherto  peaceful  city  of  Prague ;  and  our  author 
himself  assures  us,  that 

“  All  men’s  minds  seemed  in  a  blaze  :  the  city  was  daily  the  theatre  of 
sanguinary  scenes  ;  there  was  no  longer  security  at  Prague  for  personal 
safety;  — even  the  king  himself  thought*  it  best  to  take  his  departure,  and 
hurried  from  place  to  place.”  ® 

1  l*.  41.  2Id.  p.  42.  8  Ibid. 

4  Ibid  When  charged  with  this  at  the  council  of  Constance,  Huss  did  not  deny  it. —  Id.  p.  UG. 

6  Ibid.  p.  42. 

6  I’.  43.  It  requires  no  stretch  of  fancy  to  observe  an  almost  exact  parallelism  between  the  riots 
.at  Prague,  and  tho.se  which  recently  occurred  at  Philadelphia  Uuiuau  nature  and  human  passions 
fire  ever  the  same. 


TllK  COUNCIL  OF  CONSTANCE. 


201 


Such,  then,  were  the  immediate  effects  of  Huss’s  preaching  and 
doctrines  in  Prague.  At  no  distant  day,  as  we  shall  shortly  see,  these 
disasters  were  to  be  extended,  aggravated  a  hundred-fold,  to  all  Bohemia. 
But  we  are  tired  of  these  atrocities,  and  must  hasten  on  in  our  investigation. 

II.  What  means  did  IIuss  adopt  to  spread  his  doctrines  ? 

This  question  will  not  detain  us  long.  It  is  easily  answered.  M. 
Bonnechose,  in  fact,  answers  it  for  us.  Huss  formed  and  increased  his 
party,  by  strongly  appealing  to  the  passions  of  the  ignorant,  by  delivering 
violent  and  inflammatory  invectives  against  the  Popes,  the  bishops,  and 
the  clergy ;  by  exposing,  and  by  offering  to  redress,  the  grievances  of  the 
poor;  and  by  a  certain  boldness  of  tone,  fixedness  of  purpose,  and  rough 
eloquence,  which  just  suited  the  mobs  whom  he  addressed,  and  which 
made  him  the  idol,  because  they  constituted  him  the  leader  and  champion, 
of  the  multitude.  His  party  once  formed,  he  kept  it  together,  and  swelled 
its  numbers,  by  his  indomitable  energy  and  untiring  industry,  and  by  his 
exciting  and  maddening  harangues.  By  affecting  zeal  for  the  correction 
of  abuses,  and  putting  on  a  sanctimonious  air,  he  succeeded  in  winning  to 
his  standard  many  of  the  pious  and  well  disposed,  whose  simplicity  did  not 
penetrate  beyond  the  exterior  veil  which  covered  his  real  purpose  ;  whilst, 
by  appeals  to  the  avarice  of  kings  and  princes,  he  succeeded  in  inducing 
many  of  these  also,  either  to  become  his  partisans,  or,  at  least,  to  remain 
neutral.  We  will  present  a  few  extracts  from  our  author,  to  establish  such 
of  these  assertions  as  are  not  manifest  of  themselves,  or  as  have  not 
been  already  proved; 

“  Huss  had,  besides,  against  his  enemies,  the  powerful  support  of  the 
nobility,  several  members  of  whom  were  sincerely  touched  by  the  elevation 
and  purity  of  his  doctrines,  whilst  a  great  number  adopted  them,  either 
through  a  spirit  of  opposition  to  the  court,  or  through  jealousy  towards  the 
high  clergy,  or  through  the  hope  of  sharing  in  their  spoils.’*  ' 

But  Huss  soon  took  effectual  means  to  silence  the  opposition  of  the  court 
itself.  He  knew  the  weak  point  in  the  character  of  the  imbecile  Wences- 
laus  ;  and  he  stopped  not  at  anything  to  win  him  over  to  his  party.  Let 
us  auain  hear  M.  Bonnechose  : 

“  Some  of  Huss’s  opinions,  particularly  that  which  he  borrowed  from 
Wicklifle,  respecting  titles  and  church  property,  were  exceedingly  to  the 
taste  of  Wenceslaus.  ‘  Secular  lords’  he  used  to  say,  ‘  have  the  power  of 
taking  away,  whenever  they  please,  their  temporal  possessions  from  such 
ecclesiastics  as  live  in  habitual  sin.’  {They  were  to  judge) . Wen¬ 

ceslaus  adopted  those  doctrines, —  which  were  those  of  the  greater  portion 
of  the  reformers,  and  which  rendered  many  princes  favorable  to  them. 
He,  therefore,  set  himself  up  as  the  arbiter  of  the  employment  of  church 
propei'ty  ;  but,  as  lie  cared  nothing  wh.atever  for  the  poor,  it  was  into  his 
strong-box  that  the  ill-employed  riches  of  the  clergy  found  their  way  ;  and 
when  lie  openly  came  forward  an  1  supported  the  new  opinions,  his 
severity  and  his  exactions  swelled  John  Buss’s  party.  Several  wealthy 
ecclesiasf  ics  declai-ed  themselves  Hussites  ;  for,  with  a  view  to  save  their 


1  P.  10. 


202 


JOHN  HUSS  AND  THE  HUSSITES. 


property y  they  adopted  the  doctrines  which  enjoined  a  good  employment 
-of  it/’  ‘ 

These,  are,  indeed,  precious  avowals,  coming,  as  they  do,  from  a  warm 
.eulogist  of  Huss,  and  a  sworn  enemy  of  Catholicity.  They  could  have 
been  extorted  from  him  only  by  the  sternest  evidence  of  truth.  Now, 
can  any  one,  for  a  moment,  persuade  himself  that  a  m^n  who  resorted  to 
such  means,  could  have  been  either  a  saint  or  a  martyr  ?  Saints  and 
martyrs  are  made  of  different  stuff  altogether.  It  is  not  the  mere  circum¬ 
stance  of  dying  for  a  cause  which  makes  a  martyr,  but  it  is  the  justice,  and 
the  holiness,  and  the  truth  of  '  the  cause  itself.^  Could  that  man  be 
reckoned  a  martyr,  wlio  was  the  leader  of  armed  and  infuriate  mobs,  who 
made  maddening  appeals  to  the  most  grovelling  passions,  who  fanned  into 
a  wild  conflagration  the  flames  which  himself  had  liglited  up  in  the  bosom 
of  his  country,  and  who  reveled  amidst  the  ruins  which  himself  had  caused  ? 
We  think  not. 

III.  Was  John  Huss  always  equally  bold,  and  consistent  in  maintaining 
his  doctrines  ? 

Obstinacy  was,  indeed,  his  characteristic  trait ;  but  yet,  obstinate  as  he 
was,  he  was  most  certainly  a  very  different  character  at  Prague  and  at 
Constance.  At  Prague,  he  was  bold,  daring,  reckless ;  at  Constance,  he 
was  cautious,  rCvServed,  and  comparatively  timid.  At  Prague,  he  boldly 
announced  his  doctrines  and  defended  them  with  an  overpowering 
popular  eloquence  ;  at  Constance,  he  modified,  concealed,  or  openly 
denied  them.  At  Prague,  he  was  the  fearless  religious  demagogue;  at 
Constance,  he  was  the  wily  and  tortuous  heresiarch.  We  defy  any  one  to 
read  M.  Bonnechose’s  history  attentively,  without  being  forcibly  struck 
with  this  remarkable  falling  off, —  this  singular  inconsistency  in  one  who 
is  yet  held  up  to  our  admiration  as  a  saint,  a  martyr,  and  a  stainless 
reformer  of  God’s  holy  Church. 

Our  narrow  limits,  and  the  important  matters  we  have  yet  to  examine, 
will  not  permit  us  many  details  on  this  subject.  Besides,  the  thing  is  too 
plain  to  need  much  proof;  and  we  refer  with  great  confidence  to  the 
statements  of  our  partial  historian  himself.  Whoever  will  reail  and 
compare  even  his  imperfect  account  of  Huss’s  sermons  and  works®  in 
Bohemia,  with  that  of  liis  defence  of  himself  and  of  his  doctrines  at 
Constance,  must  be  persuaded  that,  while  Huss  was  the  bold  and  declared 
enemy  of  the  Church  in  the  former  place,  he  wished  to  pass  for  one  of  her 
faithful  and  obedient  children  in  the  latter.  This  inconsistency  and  this 
paltry  manoeuvring  are  acknowledged  and  remarked  on  by  M.  Bonnechose, 
who  is  sadly  puzzled  how  to  account  for  the  anomaly.  Hear  what  he 
says  on  the  subject : 

1  I*.  41i-3.  2  Martyreui  facit  non  poena,  setl  causa, —  is  an  ada};;**,  as  true  as  it  i.s  old. 

3  Especially  his  work  ‘‘  on  the  Church,”  and  his  pamplilet :  “The  Six  Errors  ”  The  first  ”  of 
these  error.s  was  that  of  the  iiriests  who  boasted  of  making  the  body  of  Jesus  Christ  in  the  mass, 
and  of  being  the  creator  of  their  creator.” —  Uonnechose,  p  45  Yet  at  Constance,  he  openly  asser¬ 
ted  the  real  prer^ence,  and  took  God  to  witness  tliat  he  had  never  taught  any  ihiiur  ai;ainst  it!  See 
lb.  p  90.  seqq.  This  is  but  one,  out  of  many,  of  the  inconsi.stencies  and  contradieiious  of  iluss. 
Cf  also  pp.  43,  45.  with  pp.  90,  104,  105,  &c.  of  our  author. 


THE  COUNCIL  OF  CONSTANCE. 


203 


■  “He  (Hiiss)  protested  his  attachment  and  respect  for  the  Qatholic 
Church :  he  declared  his  unwillingness  to  separate  from  it,  and  yet 
unknown  to  himself  (!),  he  was  giving  a  sensible  shock  to  its  foundations, 
by  maintaining  that  believers  had  the  right  to  examine  its  decrees  before 
they  submitted  to  them.  Who  does  not  perceive  that,  on  the  one  hand, 
obedience  to  a  Church  which  declares  itself  to  be  immutable  and 
infallible,  and,  on  the  other,  examination  and  appeal  to  an  internal  cri^ 
terion  —  the  conscience  —  are  two  things  contrary  to  each  other  and 
incompatible  ?  It  would  he  a  difficult  thing  to  affirm  that  John  Huss 
believed  that  he  could  reconcile  them,  or  that  he  had  supposed  that  he  had 
succeeded  in  the  task.  We  can  not,  indeed,  comprehend  how  he  could 
have  deceived  himself  on  this  point.  Yet  it  is  most  certain  that  he 
attempted  to  effect  an  agreement  between  these  two  hostile  principles,  and 
that  he  thus  carried  in  his  bosom  the  germs  of  a  violent  struggle,  at  once 
irreconcilable  and  interminable.  That  was  the  formidable  and  insolvablo 
problem,  which  agitated  his  life  and  hastened  his  end,”‘  &c.  ; 

We  must  furnish  another  curious  extract  from  our  author  on  the  same 
subject.  It  occurs  in  the  closing  paragraph  of  the  chapter  in  which, he 
treats  of  the  death  of  Huss;  and  it  is  valuable,  as  presenting  his  views  of 
the  general  character  of  the  reformer;  i 

“As  to  the  right  of  the  matter,  before  he  (Huss)  admitted  that  any_ 
proposition  was  heretical  or  false,  he  required  to  have  its  falsehood 
demonstrated  by  Scripture.  This  was  to  recognize  in  the  divine  word, 
interpreted  by  private  judgement,  an  authority  superior  to  the  decisions  of 
the  Church  —  it  was  to  attack  the  clergy  in  their  spiritual  authority.  .  . 
Strange  destiny  of  Huss !  Most  curious  problem !  In  his  way  of 
thinking,  all  separation  from  the  old  trunk  of  the  Church  is  a  lieresy 
worthy  of  hell ;  and  yet  the  separated  churches  reckon  him,  with  piide, 
amongst  their  martyrs  ! . John  Huss  considered  himself  a  Cath¬ 

olic,  and  yet  he  appealed  from  the  Church  to  his  conscience  and  to  God  I 
He  was  a  Protestant  without  knowing  itP^'^ 

We  confess  that  we  can  not  believe  that  Huss  was  so  simple.  He  was 
not  such  a  goose^  as  this  theory  would  make  him  appear.  The  truth  is, 
he  had  taken  a  wrong  step,  and  he  felt  it ;  he  occupied  a  false  position, 
and  he  did  not  wish  to  leave  it.  He  h^d  a  strong  and  clamorous  party  to 
sustain  him:  he  was  their  leader  and  head;  they  hung  upon  his  lips,  and 
they  could  be  led  like  children  by  his  words.  He  Jelt  that  he  could  not 
retract  without  displeasing  his  party,  on  whose  praises  he  had  been  so 
long  accustomed  to  feast :  he  had  not  the  humility  nor  the  moral  courage  to 
go  back  :  he  would  rather  die  first ;  —  for,  in  this  case,  he  would  be  hailed 
as  a  martyr,  and  he  might  live  with  posterity.  He  had  evidently  more 
regard  for  his  party  than  for  the  truth.  Had  he  been  a  solitary  man, 
without  a  part}'-,  he  never  would  have  mustered  courage  to  die  at 
Constance.  Such  at  least  is  our  candid  opinion  ;  and  we  think  we  do 
him  no  injustice. 

1  1*.  2  P.  106. 

3  Hush  i.s  Bohemian  for  goose;  and  Huss  himself  often  punned  on  his  name.  See  Boni.echose,  p. 
86,  iio(e.  So  then  if  we  err,  eitlier  in  tasr.e  or  in  politeness,  we  do  it  not  without  an  illustrious  pre¬ 
cedent.  It  is  remarkable,  also  tliat  the  family  name  of  .Jerome  of  1‘rajjue.  Faul/isit,  means  a,  foul 
Jisk.  \t  least,  the  names  of  both  of  the  Bohemian  reformers  were  ominous.  That  of  Jerome, 
however,  was  much  more  appropriate  than  that  of  Huss. 


204 


JOHN  HUSS  AND  THE  HUSSITES. 


IV.  A  still  more  important  question,  is  —  had  Huss  a  fair  trial  a* 
Constance  ? 

We  sincerely  believe  that  he  had ;  and  to  prove  it,  we  need  no  othei 
vouchers  than  the  facts  of  the  case, —  apart  from  the  false  coloring  and 
unfair  construction, —  as  given  by  M.  Bonnechose  himself.  The  following 
facts  are  certain  and  undoubted. 

1st.  John  Huss  went  to  the  council  of  Constance,  of  his  own  accord, 
in  voluntary  obedience  to  the  summons  of  the  emperor  Sigismund,  and 
with  the  avowed  purpose  of  answering  the  charges  of  his  enemies,  and 
proving  that  he  had  said  and  written  nothing  against  the  Catholic  faith. 
He  often  boasted,  even  before  the  council,  that  he  had  come  to  Constance 
of  his  own  free  will ;  and  that  had  he  chosen  to  remain  in  Bohemia,  his 
powerful  partisans  there  could  have  concealed  and  protected  him,  even 
against  the  king  of  Bohemia,  and  his  more  powerful  brother,  the  emperor 
Sigismund  himself.'  Before  his  departue  from  Prague, 

‘‘  In  a  paper  affixed  to  the  gates  of  the  palace,  he  announced  that  he 
was  about  to  depart,  in  order  to  justify  himself  before  the  council.  ‘So 
that,’  said  he,  ‘  if  any  one  suspects  me  of  heresy,  let  him  proceed  thither 
and  prove,  in  presence  of  tlie  Pope  and  the  doctors,  if  I  ever  entertained 
or  taught  any  false  or  mistaken  doctrine.  If  any  man  can  convict  me  of 
having  inculcated  any  doctrine  contrary  to  the  Christian  faith,  /  will 
consent  to  undergo  all  the  penalty  to  which  heretics  are  liable.’  &c. 

2d.  After  he  had  arrived  at  Constance,  he  had  three  different  hearings 
from  the  council ;  and  the  investigation  into  his  doctrines  and  writings 
was  full,  lengthy,  and  detailed.  Though  the  weighty  affair  of  the  schism, 
and  much  other  most  perplexing  business,  pressed  heavily  on  the  council, 
yet  the  assembled  fathers  consented  to  go  into  a  minute  and  patient 
examination  of  his  doctrines,  article  by  article,  and  to  hear  his  answer  to 
each  of  the  charges  preferred  against  him.  Nothing  could  be  fairer,  or 
more  in  conformity  with  law  and  usage,  than  the  whole  order  of  the 
proceedings.  His  books  were  first  produced,  and  he  was  asked  whether 
they  contained  his  genuine  writings.  Then  his  accusers,  among  whom 
the  principal  were  his  countrymen,  Stephen  Paletz  and  Michael  Causis, 
stood  forth  in  open  court,  and  distinctly  uttered  their  charges  against 
him  ;  and  many  witnesses  were  summoned  to  corroborate  their  testimony. 
John  Huss  had  the  privilege  of  answering  all  the  accusations  separately ; 
and,  though  there  seems  to  have  been,  once  or  twice,  some  murmuring 
in  the  assembly,  owing  to  the  exciting  nature  of  the  inquiry,  yet  the 
whole  trial  was  generally  conducted  with  calmness  and  with  temper.^ 

3d.  When  John  Huss  denied  the  truth  of  many  of  the  articles  alleged 
airainst  him,  and  maintained  that  he  had  never  taus^ht  the  doctrines  with 
which  he  stood  charged,  the  accusations  were  made  good  by  a  regular 
course  of  testimony, —  by  the  oath  of  men  who  had  heard  him  preach  in 
Prairue  and  Bohemia,  some  of  whom  had  been  his  intimate  friends,'  and 

1  Se«  M  !$onnecho.se,  p.  92.  2  Ibid,  p.  49.  See  also  p  57 

3  All 'hie  is  admitted  by  >I  Bonnecho.se,  p.  89  seqq.  For  the  excirement  in  tlie  council,  which 
be  certainly  <:reatly  exajtserates,  we  have  little  more  evidence  tnan  his  bare  word. 

4  As,  for  instance,  Paletz. 


THE  COUNCIL  OF  CONSTANCE. 


205 


all  of  whom  were  men  of  integrity  and  above  suspicion.  AfWr  this 
formidable  array  of  evidence,  the  Cardinal  of  Florence,  Gabarella,  might 
well  address  Huss  as  follows  : 

“Master  John  Huss,  you  must  know  that  it  is  written,  that  what  is  in 
the  mouth  of  two  or  three  witnesses  must  be  considered  a  veritable 
testimony.  Now  here  are  twenty  persons  worthy  of  confidence,  who 
declare  that  you  have  preached  this  doctrine  which  is  imputed  to  you. 
The  greater  number  of  them  adduce,  in  support  of  their  assertions, 
unanswerable  proofs :  —  is  it  possible  that  you  defend  yourself  aorainst 
them  all  ?”  ‘ 

4th.  It  was  in  vain  that  John  Huss  appealed  to  his  God  and  to  his 
conscience  against  all  this  testimony.  Such  an  appeal  would  have  been 
received  against  such  evidence  in  no  court  of  justice.  It  was  a  question 
of  fact,  and  not  of  mere  conscience  ;  and  the  cardinal  could  well  answer  : 
“  we  cannot  decide  after  your  conscience,  but  on  clear  and  well  established 
evidence.”  ^  Besides,  his  chief  accusers,  Paletz  and  Causis,  also  appealed 
to  their  God  and  their  conscience,  in  proof  of  their  sincerity,  and  of  the 
truth  of  their  charges  : 

“  Paletz  then  rose  up  and  cried  out :  ‘  I  call  God  to  witness,  in  presence 
of  the  emperor  and  the  sacred  council,  that  I  have  said  nothing  here 
through  hatred  to  John  Huss,  nor  through  any  malevolent  feeling,  and  that 
I  have  not  set  myself  up  as  the  adversary  of  so  many  errors,  but  through 
zeal  for  the  Catholic  church.’  Michael  Causis  repeated  the  same  oath.”^ 

In  view  of  all  these  unquestionable  facts,  it  must  be  admitted  that  John 
Huss  had  a  fair  trial,  and  that,  if  he  was  convicted,  it  was  solely  by  the 
force  of  evidence.  He  had  appeared  voluntarily  before  the  council ;  he 
was  a  priest  of  the  Catholic  Church,  and,  therefore,  was  fairly  amenable 
to  her  authority ;  he  maintained  that  he  was  still  a  true  Catholic,  and  that 
he  had  said  no  word,  written  no  sentence,  done  no  deed,  against  the  Catholic 
faith  ;  he  challenged  an  investigation,  and  declared  that  he  was  willing  to 
abide  its  result ;  it  was  a  question  of  fact  to  be  decided  by  evidence  ; 
evidence,  strong  and  overwhelming,  was  produced  ;  he  answered  it  by  an 
appeal  to  his  conscience ;  the  appeal  was  not  legitimate  and  could  not  be 
admitted  ,  he  was  convicted  of  erroneous  doctrines  under  all  these  circum¬ 
stances  :  —  and  where  is  the  man,  we  would  ask,  not  wholly  blinded  by 
prejudice,  who  will  still  say  that  he  was  not  lawfully  convicted,  or  that  he 
had  not  a  fair  trial  ? 

V.  But  we  must  pass  on  to  the  next  inquiry:  —  did  the  council  of  Con¬ 
stance  treat  John  Huss  with  wanton  cruelty  ? 

We  answer,  without  hesitation,  in  the  negative ;  and  we  think  we  can 
sustain  our  answer  by  facts,  much  stronger  than  the  mere  declamation  of 
those  who,  for  the  last  four  centuries,  have  been  in  the  habit  of  constantly 
reiterating  this  charge.  Nor  will  it  require  much  time  or  space  to  establish 
our  proposition. 

As  we  have  already  sufficiently  proved,  neither  the  Church,  nor  especi 


1  Sec  M.  lionnechose,  p.  91 

w 


2  lb.  p  91. 


3  P.  96. 


206 


JOHN  HUSS  AND  THE  HUSSITES. 


ally  the  council  of  Constance,  made  the  law  by  which  heretics  were  liable 
to  be  punished  with  death.  It  had  been  enacted  two  centuries  before  by 
the  German  emperors  ;  and  they  alone, —  and  not  the  council  of  Constance, 
—  were  fairly  responsible  for  it  and  for  its  results.  It  was  the  emperor 
Siofismund  and  the  elector  Palatine,  and  not  the  fathers  of  the  council  of 

O 

Constance,  who  passed  sentence  of  death  on  Huss.*  It  was  the  magis¬ 
trates  of  Constance,  acting  under  the  direction  of  the  two  high  functionaries 
just  named,  who  presided  at  his  execution.  After  having  convicted  him 
of  heresy,  and  excommunicated  and  degraded  him  frohi  his  priestly  office, 
the  council  expressly  declared  that  it  had  no  power  to  proceed  any  farther 
against  him.^  According  to  a  fixed  and  standing  law  of  the  Catholic 
Church, —  a  law  embodied  as  an  adage^  in  the  canon  law  itself,  and  strict 
and  universal  in  its  application,  —  the  council  could  proceed  no  farther. 

Before  the  council  pronounced  judgment  on  the  doctrines  of  Huss, 
the  emperor  Sigismund  had  already  declared  to  him,  in  presence  of  the 
assembled  fathers,  that,  by  a  standing  law  of  the  empire,  heresy  was  pun¬ 
ishable  with  death ;  and  he  had  added,  that,  unless  Huss  would  retract  his 
errors,  he  would,  with  his  own  hands,  be  ready  to  liglit  up  the  fire  which 
would  consume  him.'*  Huss  himself,  as  we  have  seen,  was  well  aware  of 
this  law  ;  he  openly  admitted  its  justice  before  the  council  itself;  and  in  the 
placards  he  had  put  up  in  Prague  and  on  his  journey  to  Constance,  he  had 
declared  his  readiness  to  submit  to  its  hard  penalty,  in  case  he  should  be 
convicted  of  heresy.® 

Had  the  council  thirsted  for  the  blood  of  Huss,  would  it  not  have  been 
eager  to  exact  the  punishment  ordained  by  the  imperial  laws  ?  Would  it 
not  have  loudly  clamored  for  his  execution  ?  The  acts  of  the  council, 
however,  state  nothing  of  the  kind  ;  but  they  do  state,  and  M.  Bonnechose 
himself  admits  the  fact,  that  the  fathers  did  every  thing  in  their  power  to 
rescue  Huss  from  death,  by  laboring  to  persuade  him  to  make  at  least  a 
modified  retraction  of  his  errors.  No  effort  was  spared  to  bring  about  this 
result ;  the  only  means,  then  known  to  the  laws,  by  which  he  could  be 
saved.  Formulary  after  formulary  of  retraction  was  submitted  to  him ; 
embassy  after  embassy  was  sent :  cardinals,  bishops,  his  own  chief  accuser 
Paletz,  the  emperor  himself,  with  tears  in  their  eyes,  urged  and  entreated 
Huss  to  retract.  But  arguments,  entreaties,  tears,  were  all  lost  on  the 
•obstinate  and  immovable  Bohemian.  Huss  was  inflexible.  He  could  have 
escaped  death ;  but  he  rushed  into  its  jaws .® 

’ '  Nor  let  us  be  told  that  Huss  could  not  retract,  without  sacrificina:  his 
conscience.  He  may  have  been  conscientious  :  but,  from  what  we  have 

1  Fiddes  and  Dr.  Brown  Willis,  English  Protestants,  both  candidly  admit  that  if  there  was  any 
blame  in  the  matter,  it  attached,  in  all  fairness,  to  the  emperor  alone.  See  Life  of  Card'l.  iVolsey,  p 
137.  L’EnfantaLso  admits  it,  though  a  Calvinist,  llist.  Cone.  Const.  L.  iii,  $48. 

2  See  Acts  of  the  Council,  Sess.  xv. 

3  Ecdeaia  abhorret  a  sanguine.  No  clergyman  was  allowed  to  shed  blood,  even  as  a  surgeon,  much 
less  to  pronounce  directly  or  indirectly,  sentence  of  death  on  any  one. 

4  L’Enfant, /oco  citato,  §  8. 

6  In  addition  to  the  authorities  already  (quoted,  {supra)  see  L’Enfant  Liv.  1,  $  21,  and  L.  iii,  $  7. 

6  See,  for  proof  of  all  this,  Honnec^iose,  pp.  95,  97,  98,  99. 


,THE  COUNCIL  OF  CONSTANCE. 


207 


seen  of  his  character,  there  seems  to  have  been  more  of  false  pride  and  of 
sheer  obstinacy,  than  of  conscience  in  his  whole  conduct.  He  had  already, 
in  open  council,  disavowed  nearly  all  the  errors  imputed  to  him;  he  had 
condemned  the  most  obnoxious  principles  of  WicklifFe  ;  he  had  sought  to 
prove  himself  a  thorough  and  obedient  Catholic.  He  had  declared,  over 
and  over  again,  that  he  had  never  taught  the  doctrines  ascribed  to  him,  as 
he  said,  by  his  enemies,  through  sheer  malice  and  calumny  ;  and  yet  he 
would  not  retract  them  !  And  he  based  his  refusal  on  the  ground,  that  if 
he  did  retract  them,  his  opponents  would  say  that  he  had  taught  them  ! 
The  emperor  Sigismund  answered  this  quibble,  as  follows : 

'  **  What  can  you  fear  in  abjuring  all  these  articles  ?  For  my  part,  I  have 

no  hesitation  in  disavowing  all  kinds  of  errors ;  but  does  it  follow  that  I 
have  entertained  them?”‘ 

The  emperor  himself,  after  all  other  means  had  failed,  sent  a  commission 
of  four  bishops,  with  some  of  the  principal  ^friends  of  Huss,  to  persuade 
him  to  submit.  Huss  wished  to  argue  with  them  ;  not  to  acquiesce  quietly 
in  the  decision  of  the  council.  “  Do  you,  then,”  said  one  of  the  bishops, 
“believe  yourself  wiser  than  the  whole  council?”^  Huss  evaded  this 
searching  question  by  an  appeal  to  the  Scriptures  and  to  his  conscience, 
and  by  a  professed  willingness  to  be  taught  “in  the  divine  word  by  the 
least  person  in  the  council !  Here,  then,  was  the  real  issue  :  —  private 
judgment  against  Church  authority.  This  was  the  true  secret  of  his 
obstinacy.  And  this  overweening  pride  and  obstinate  self-will  were  greatly 
encouraged  by  John  de  Chlum  and  his  other  partisans  at  Constance.^ 

Had  the  principles  of  Huss  been  merely  speculative  and  harmless ;  had 
they  not  struck  at  the  very  foundations  of  all  social  order ;  had  they  not 
already  produced  their  legitimate  effects  of  seditions  and  bloodshed  in  Bohe¬ 
mia;  we  think  that,  notwithstanding  his  obstinacy,  he  might  yet  have  been 
spared.  At  least,  in  that  supposition,  we  would  feel  much  more  strongly 
inclined  to  sympathize  with  him.  But  with  all  these  unquestionable  facts 
in  view,  we  cannot,  at  least,  coincide  with  those  who  would  fain  exalt  him 
to  the  rank  of  a  saint  and  a  martyr. 

VI.  But  the  most  weighty  charge  against  the  council  of  Constance 
remains  yet  to  be  examined:  —  did  the  council  act  perfidiously  towards  John 
Huss  ? 

That  the  council  decoyed  John  Huss  to  Constance  under  the  faith  and 
protection  of  a  safe  conduct ;  that  it  then  decreed  his  death  in  spite  of 
that  plighted  faith  ;  and  that,  to  sustain  this  perfidious  course,  it  openly 
sanctioned  the  principle  that  “no  faith  is  to  be  kept  with  heretics ;”  these 
are  charges  so  often  made  by  prejudiced  and  ignorant  writers,  and  so  often 
and  so  triumphantly  refuted  from  the  history  and  acts  of  the  council  itself. 

1  See  M.  Bonnechose.  p.  95  "  Ibid,  p.  99.  2  Ibid. 

4  Much  has  been  .said  and  written  about  the  imprisonment  of  Huss,  and  tiie  cruelties  inflicted  on 
him  in  prison.  But  was  he  not  permitted  to  correspoud  with  his  friends,  and  even  to  write  whole 
treati,«e8  in  prison  ?  And  did  not  he  himself  thank  his  keepers  for  their  humanity  and  good  treat 
ment?  (See  Bonnechose,  p.  104) 


JOHN  HUSS  AND  THE  HUSSITES. 


:i08 

that  we  are  much  pleased  to  find  so  prejudiced  a  writer  as  M.  Bonnechoso 
abandon  them  altocrether.‘  This  is  some  evidence  that  truth  and  ffood 

O  O 

sense  are  beginning  at  length  to  resume  their  sway  in  the  world. 

This  implied  admission  will  release  us  from  the  necessity  of  going  into 
lengthy  details  on  this  branch  of  the  subject.  But  as  our  author  intimates 
in  more  places  than  one,  that  the  emperor  Sigismund  violated  the  safe 
conduct  which  he  had  given  to  John  Huss  as  he  garbles  the  safe  conduct 
itself,  and  as  he  omits  many  important  facts  and  misstates  others,  we  may 
be  pardoned  for  furnishing  a  brief  exposition  of  the  whole  case.  * 

First,  then,  it  is  altogether  certain  that  the  council  of  Constance  never 
gave  a  safe  conduct  to  John  Huss  at  all,  and,  therefore,  that  it  could  not, 
by  possibility,  have  violated  any  faith  plighted  to  him.  This  fact  no  one 
will  or  can  deny. 

2.  It  gave,  indeed,  a  safe  conduct  to  Jerome  of  Prague  ;  but  that 
instrument  merely  guaranteed  to  him  protection  in  coming  to  Constance, 
and  in  defending  his  doctrine  while  there  ;  but  it  expressly  stipulated,  that 
this  protection  was  not  meant  to  prevent  his  conviction,  if  guilty,  or  to 
frustrate  the  due  course  of  law.^  Besides,  M.  Bonnechose  admits,  that 
this  safe  conduct  did  riot  reAch  Jerome  before  his  arrest  by  the  civil  officers 
in  the  Black  Forest,  while  he  was  flying  from  Constance  ;  and  that,  by  a 
necessary  inference,  he  could  not  properly  claim  the  privileges  which  it 
granted.^  Thus  it  is  apparent,  that  there  could  have  been  no  breach  of 
faith  on  the  part  of  the  council,  in  regard  either  to  Huss  or  to  Jerome. 

3.  The  safe  conduct  granted  to  John  Huss  by  the  emperor  Sigismund 
was  evidently  a  mere  traveling  passport,  intended  to  protect  him  from 
indignity,  detention,  and  outrage,  on  his  journey  from  Bohemia  to 
Constance,  but  not,  by  any  means,  to  protect  him  from  the  consequences 
growing  out  of  the  due  course  of  law.  Huss  never  solicited  nor  even 
expected  any  such  exemption,  and  the  emperor  could  never  have  meant  to 
grant  anything  of  the  kind.  With  an  imperial  document  guaranteeing  so 
wide  a  protection  as  this,  what  was  the  use  of  Huss’  journey  to  Constance  ? 
What  was  the  meaning  of  his  boast,  made  at  Prague  and  on  the  journey, 
that  he  went  to  Constance  of  his  own  accord,  to  defend  himself  ao:ainst  the 
charge  of  heresy,  or  to  abide  its  penalty  ?  There  would  have  been  no 
object  whatever  in  his  visit,  and  the  whole  affair  would  have  been  a 
solemn  mockery  and  a  ridiculous  farce.  Does  a  passport  given  now-a-days 
secure  the  bearer  from  legal  prosecution  and  conviction  ?  Or  was  a 
passport  ever  known,  in  the  whole  history  of  the  world,  to  grant  this 
species  of  exemption  ?  If  not,  then  why  extort  this  absurd  meaning  from 
that  granted  by  Sigismund  to  John  Huss  ? 

The  clause  —  “to  return,”  <fec.,  was  evidently  a  mere  form  usual  in 
similar  instruments,  and  the  whole  document,  with  all  its  details  and  legal 

1  At  least  if  M.  Bonnechose  says  expressly  any  thing  of  the  kind,  it  has  entirely  escaped  our 
notice  The  only  hint  on  the  subject  we  have  observed  is  found  on  p.  61,  and  that  is  not  entirely 
clear  or  explicit. 

2  M.  Bonnechose  admits  this,  though  he  ascribes  unworthy  motives  to  the  council.  The 

modifying  clause  was  salva  justitia,  p.  73.  3  Ibid. 


THE  COUNCIL  OF  CONSTANCE. 


209 


forms,  marks  il  as  a  mere  passport.  Huss  had  many  violent  enemies  in 
Germany,  which  he  was  compelled  to  traverse  on  his  way  to  Constance. 
'I'he  German  students,  whom  he  had  caused  to  be  expelled  from  Prague, 
bore  him  a  mortal  grudge  ;  and  it  was  to  secure  his  person  from  tliese 
enemies,  and  to  facilitate  his  journey,  that  the  safe  conduct  was  given.’ 
It  could  have  had  no  other  object. 

4.  The  emperor  himself  gave  precisely  tliis  explanation  of  the  meaning 
attached  by  him  to  the  safe  conduct,  in  a  public  address  delivered  before 
tlie  council  of  Constance,  in  the  presence  of  Huss  and  Iris  friends,  and  his 
explanation  was  acquiesced  in  by  them  ;  at  least  they  said  naught  against 
it  at  the  time.^ 

5.  But  whatever  protection  was  intended  to  be  granted  by  the  imperial 
safe  conduct,  Huss  forfeited  all  claims  to  it,  by  officiating  openly  at 
Constance,  though  under  papal  excommunication,^  and  especially  by  his 
attempted  flight  from  the  city.  Of  this  last  fact,  though  it  was  the 
immediate  cause  of  the  imprisonment  of  Huss,^  M.  Bonnechose  says  not  a 
Word  !  Yet  it  is  attested  by  Ulricli  Reichental,  a  citizen  of  Constance, 
and  an  eye-witness  !*  Why  omit  so  important  a  fact 

Thus,  then,  it  is  manifest,  from  the  clearest  and  most  incontestable 
evidence,  that  neither  the  council  of  Constance  nor  the  emperor  Sigismund 
acted  with  bad  faith  towards  either  John  Huss  or  Jerome  of  Praa^ue.  All 
these  facts  must  be  blotted  from  the  pages  of  history,  before  any  such 
conclusion  can  be  reached. 

Much  is  said  about  the  patience  and  heroism  with  which  Huss  and 
Jerome  met  death.  But  even  were  we  to  admit  all  that  their  partisans 
have  written  on  the  subject,  it  would  not  prove  them  to  have  been  either 
saints  or  martyrs.  Sincere  enthusiasts  they  might  have  been,  martyrs 
they  certainly  were  not.  The  ancient  martyrs  were  patient,  humble, 
obedient  to  the  Church,  and  they  died  to  seal  with  their  blood  the  religion 
of  Jesus  Christ.  Huss  and  Jerome  died,  as  the  founders  and  partisans  of 
a  truculent  sect,  the  doctrines  of  which  were  subversive  of  all  social  order, 

1  See  the  safe  conduct  as  given  entire  from  the  original,  documents,  b^'  Natalis  Alexander — Hia- 
tona  Ecclesiastica,  vol.  ix,  p.  407,  edit.  Venet.  1778,  in  10  vols.  folio.  The  mere  reading  of  the 
document  proves  it  to  have  been  nothing  more  nor  less  than  a  simple  passport. 

2  M.  Bonnechose  admits  this,  and  gives  the  emperor’s  address,  pp.  92,  93. 

3  See  the  acts  of  the  council,  sess.  10. 

4  The  letters  of  Huss  to  his  friends,  and  M.  Bonnechose's  own  admission,  establish  the  fact  that, 
for  more  than  twenty-six  days,  IIuss  was  entirely  free  and  unrestrained  at  Constance  fib.  p  56.) 

6  In  his  hiatory  of  the  council,'written  in  German,  and  quoted  by  Cochloeus  —  Histor.  Hussitarum, 
lib.  ii,  pp.  73,  74,  Reichental  gives  all  the  details  of  the  attempted  flight  of  IIuss,  and  of  his  arrest 
by  Latzembock,  a  Bohemian  nobleman  to  whose  charge  he  had  been  entrusted  by  the  emperor. 

6  In  the  text,  M.  Bonnechose  says  not  a  syllable  about  this  attempted  flight  of  Huss.  But  in  note 
II ,  at  the  end  of  the  volume  (p.  189),  he  admits  that  not  only  Reichental  but  another  eye-witness, 
Gebhard  Ducher.  certifies  the  fact.  Nay,  more,  he  funishes  a  leng'hy  extract  from  the  sixth  book 
of  L’Knfant’s  (Calvinist)  history  of  the  council  of  Constance,  in  which  this  unexceptionable  historian 
relates  the  whole  occurrence  in  full.  lie  also  admits  that  Naucler  and  the  Abbe  Tri'heme,  who 
wrote  about  a  century  after  the  council,  relate  the  fact  as  certain;  and  that  John  Cochloeus, 
Maimbourg,  Varillas,  and  “  oil  the  modern  authors”  mention  it.  Yet  he  will  not  admit  its 
authenticity,  because,  forsooth,  certain  other  authors,  favorites  of  his,  did  not  think  proper  to 
relate  it,  and  because  no  mention  of  it  is  made  in  the  acts  of  the  council!  This  preferring  of 
negative  to  positive  evidence  would,  if  carried  out,  sap  the  foundations  ot  all  history. 

W  2  17 


210 


JOIINHUSS  AND  THE  HUSSITES. 


and  the  acts  of  which  filled  all  Bohemia  with  sedition,  riots,  s.'icrilege,  and 
bloodshed ;  as  we  shall  soon  see  more  in  detail. 

The  decree  of  the  council,  sanctioned  in  the  nineteenth  session,  merely 
explained  the  safe  conduct  given  to  John  Huss  by  the  emperor  in  the  very 
sense  in  which  Sigismund  had  already  explained  it,  viz  :  that  it  was  not 
intended  to  prevent  the  legal  examination  and  conviction  of  Huss  by  the 
council,  but  merely  to  insure  him  protection  against  illegal  violence  and 
outrage  on  his  journey.  To  put  any  other  construction  upon  it  is  to  offer 
violence  to  the  plainest  language.  It  merely  asserts,  what  every  one 
admits,  that  a  traveling  passport  is  not  intended  to  stop  the  ordinary  course 
of  law,  nor  to  protect  the  guilty;  and  that  he  who  has  granted  it  is  not 
responsible  for  the  action  of  the  law  against  the  individual  in  whose  favor 
it  was  given.  The  decree  was  probably  made  to  quiet  the  clamors  of  some 
Bohemian  partisans  of  Huss,  after  his  arrest  and  imprisonment  by  order 
of  the  emperor.’ 

So  far,  in  fact,  was  the  council  from  approving  the  abominable 
maxim, — “Faith  is  not  to  be  kept' with  heretics,” — -or  of  sanctioning 
perjury  in  any  form  or  shape,  that,  among  the  questions  which  it  drew  up 
after  the  election  of  Martin  V.,  to  be  put  to  those  suspected  of  heresy, 
there  was  one  in  which  the  suspected  person  was  to  be  asked  whether  he 
,  believed  that,  under  any  circumstances,  or  for  any  reason  whatever,  it  was 
allowable  for  him  to  falsify  the  truth,  or  to  perjure  himself.  The  motive 
for  adopting  this  form  of  interrogation,  was  the  charge  often  made  against 
the  Hussites,  that  they  would  not  scruple  to  commit  perjury,  in  order  to 
conceal  or  defend  their  doctrines.  If  this  charge  was  true, —  and  there  is 
strong  evidence  to  sustain  it, —  it  appears  that,  as  has  often  happened  both 
before  and  since,  the  Catholic  church  was  accused  of  the  very  maxims  and 
crimes  of  which  her  adversaries  were  guilty! 

We  will  conclude  this  paper  by  furnishing  a  very  rapid  sketch  of  what 
took  place  in  Bohemia,  after  the  death  of  John  Huss  and  Jerome  of  Prague. 
The  terrible  events  which  ensued  there,  and  filled  all  Bohemia  with  con¬ 
fusion,  sacrilege,  and  bloodshed,  for  nearly  half  a  century,  present  the 
best  possible  commentary  on  the  life  and  doctrines  of  Huss.  They  were 
but  the  bitter  fruits  of  that  tree  of  disobedience,  which  he  had  planted  in 
once  peaceful  and  happy  Bohemia  !  “  By  their  fruits  ye  shall  know 

them,”  said  our  blessed  Lord ;  and  we  are  going  to  apply  this  divine  rule. 

The  mantle  of  Huss  fell  on  the  shoulders  of  Ziska,  his  friend,  his 
fdisciple,  his  avenger,  near  whose  tomb  was  engraved  this  inscription  :  “  0 


1  The  decree  is  as  follows  in  the  original : — “  Prsesens  Sancta  Synodus  ex  quovis  salvo  conductu 
per  iinperatorem,  reges  et  alios  soeculi  principes,  haereticis  vel  de  haeresi  diffainatis,  putarites  eosdem 
Bic  a  suis  erroribus  revocare,  quocumque  vinculo  se  adstrinxerint,  concesso.  nullum  fidei  Catholicje 
vel  jurisdictioni  ecclesiasticse  praejudicum  generari  vel  inipediuientum  praestari  posse  seu  debere 
declarat,  quoininus  dicto  salvo  conductu  non  obstante,  liceat  judici  competenti  et  ecclesiastico  de 
hujusmodi  persoiiaruni  erroribus  inquirere,  et  alias  contra  eos  debite  procedere.  eosdeinquo  punire 
in  quantum  justitia  suadebit,  si  suos  errores  revocare  pertinaciter  recusaverint,  etamsi  de  salvo 
conductu  confisi  ad  locum  venerint  judicii.  alias  non  venturi ;  nec  sic  promittentem,  cum  fecerit 
quod  in  ipso  est,  ex  hoc  in  aliquo  remansisse  obligatum.”  Sessio  xix.  Labbei  Concilia,  vol.  xil 
col.  169 


THE  COUNCIL  OF  CONSTANCE. 


211 


Huss!  here  reposes  John  Ziska,  thy  avenger,  and  the  emperor  himself  has 
quailed  before  him!”'  Perhaps  of  all  the  dark  deeds  recorded  in  the 
annals  of  mankind,  those  done  in  Bohemia,  at  this  period,  were  the  darkest ; 
and  of  all  the  dark  names  which  are  found  on  the  pages  of  history,  that 
of  Ziska  is  the  darkest  I 

During  his  lifetime,  and  for  half  a  century  after  his  death,  his  very  name 
made  all  Europe  shudder  with  horror.  Whithersoever  he  bent  his  course, 
he  rioted  amidst  Carnage  and  ruins.  He  combined  the  cruelty  of  Attila 
with  the  fanaticism  of  Cromwell ;  and  his  fanatical  followers  had  the  tierce 
ruthlessness  of  the  Huns,  blended  with,  but  not  softened  by,  the  stern 
religious  enthusiasm  of  the  Roundheads.  During  the  few  years  that  this 
truculent  monster  headed  the  armies  of  the  Hussites, —  from  the  death  of 
Huss  in  1415  to  his  own  death  on  the  11th  of  October,  1424, —  Bohemia 
was  changed  from  a  blooming  garden  into  a  frightful  and  frowning  wilder¬ 
ness.  Let  us  hear  even  our  very  partial  historian,  M.  Bonnechose,  on 
this  subject; — 

“  Bohemia,  from  one  extremity  to  the  other,  soon  became  one  vast  field 
of  carnage  ;  everywhere  conflagrations  displayed  to  view  dreadful  massa¬ 
cres  ;  woe  to  the  towns,  castles,  and,  above  all,  the  monasteries  that  closed 
their  gates, —  all  passed  by  the  edge  of  the  sword.  The  sight  of  a  monk 

or  a  priest  filled  Ziska  with  a  gloomy  rage . He  smote,  burned,  and 

exterminated,  coldly  glutting  his  vengeance  in  the  shock  of  combatants, 
the  gleam  of  flames,  the  shrieks  of  victims,  ‘punishing,’  as  Balbiaus 
expresses  it,  ‘  one  sacrilege  by  a  thousand  !  ’  Bohemia,  Germany,  and 
Europe,  were  soon  filled  with  the  name  of  this  terrible  man.  Wenceslaus 
awoke  from  his  shameful  slumber  at  the  noise  of  his  falling  palaces,  of  his 
churches  in  ashes,  of  his  senate  massacred  ;  he  started  up  in  a  frightful  fit 
of  passion,  which  was  injurious  to  himself  alone,  for  his  fury  suffocated 
him.”^ 

The  followers  of  “this  terrible  man”  were  called  Taborites  ;  “their 
enemies  were  the  Philistines,  the  Moabites,  the  Ammonites :  Sigisipund 
was  the  red  horse  of  the  Apocalypse  :  Bohemia  was  the  land  of  promise. 
The  mountains  adjoining  Prague  received  the  biblical  name  of  Horeb ; 

‘  their  fierce  inhabitants  descended  from  them  at  the  call  of  Ziska,  and 
hurried  to  his  standard,”^  and  their  leader  called  himself  “Ziska  of 
the  cup.” 

Already  blind  of  one  eye,  he  was  deprived  of  the  other  by  the  wound 
of  an  arrow  at  the  siege  of  Raby  : 

“Butin  becoming  blind,  he  became  still  more  terrible, —  his  wound 
was  a  fresh  stimulus  to  his  rage  as  to  his  genius,  and  revealed  in  him 
faculties  really  almost  inciedible.  His  memory  of  locafities  was  pro¬ 
digious  :  it  was  quite  sufficient  for  him  to  have  once  passed  through  a 
country,  to  remain  forever  perfect  master  of  all  its  slightest  incidents. 
Bohemia,  with  her  waters,  woods,  valleys,  and  plains,  was  now  as  present 
to  his  thoughts  as  the  reality  had  ever  been  to  his  sight.  A  spirit  of  fire 
in  a  body  of  iron,  his  activity  knew  no  fatigue,  and  became  exasperated  at 
rest.  ‘  All  seasons  and  weather  are  alike  to  this  blind  man,’  his  soldiers 

* 

1  Bonnechose,  p.  165. 


2  Ib.  p.  158. 


S  lb.  p.  160. 


212 


JOHN  HUSS  AND  THE  HISSITES. 


used  to  mutter ;  ‘  he  goes  by  night  as  by  day/  Wherever  there  was  n 
monastery  to  burn,  or  a  town  to  take,  or  an  army  to  combat,  he  hurried  to 
the  spot,  and  was  soon  accomplishing  the  deed  of  blood,  with  a  superhu¬ 
man  force,  as  if  urged  to  the  work  bv  an  exterminating  God/'* 

Such  was  Ziska  “of  the  cup,"  the  successor  of  John  Huss,  and  the 
very  impersonation  of  Hussism.  He  never  knew  defeat ;  he  conquered  in 
eleven  pitched  battles.  He  often  raged  against  his  own  followers,  with  as 
much  cruelty  as  against  his  enemies.  He  bequeathed  his  fiendish  spirit  to 
the  two  Procopiuses,  who  succeeded  him  as  leaders  of  the  Hussites  ;  and 
to  animate  their  courage,  and  to  keep  up  the  fierce  and  sanguinary  spirit 
of  his  followers,  he  bequeathed  to  them  a  martial  instrument  of  music, 
such  as  never  was  heard  of  either  before  or  since ! 

“  He  eicpired  (of  the  plague)  on  October  1 1,  1424,  ordering  his  soldiers 
to  abandon  his  body  to  birds  of  prey,  and  to  have  his  skin  made  into  a 
drum,  the  mere  noise  of  which  would  cast  terror  into  his  enemies. 

Such,  then,  were  the  fruits  of  the  doctrines  and  of  the  obstinacy  of  John 
Huss  !  For  it  was  certainly  more  owing  to  the  truculent  character  and 
tendency  of  those  doctrines^  than  to  any  mere  revenge  for  his  death,  that 
Bohemia  was  filled  with  all  those  atrocities.  Such  was  the  dark  and 
bloody  monument  which  Bohemia  erected  to  his  memory!  So  much 
mischief  can  one  bad  man  do  in  the  world ! 

1  Bonnechose,  p.  161.  2  lb.  p.  IM. 


XL  THE  SPANISH  INQUISITION.  —  PRESCOTT’S 

VIEW.* 


Interest  of  Spanish  history— Evils  arising  from  the  French  revolutiou— Can  Spain  become  Protestanf] 
— Prescott's  Ferdinnnd  and  I.<abella — His  character  as  an  historian— His  prejudices— His  authorities 
on  the  Spanish  Inquisition— Who  was  Limborcb?  —  His  reliability — Character  of  Llorente- Writer* 
on  the  other  side— Prescott’s  view — His  statements  examined— Three  propositions  established- Wa* 

the  Spani.sh  Inquisition  a  religious  or  a  political  institution? — Us  origin  traced — A  parallel  case _ 

Remarkable  testimony  of  llanke  — The  alleged  cruelties  of  the  inquisition — Are  they  exaggerated? 

—Authority  of  Voltaire— Of  Bourgoing — And  of  Limborch — The  civil  and  ecclesiastical  court* _ 

“Justice  and  Mercy”— Mode  of  procedure  — Motive  for  secresy — Torture — .lurisprudence  of  the 
time — In  what  court  was  the  final  decision  given? — Count  I’olnitz— English  and  Genevan  Inquisition 
— Was  counsel  allowed  the  accused  ? — Is  the  Catholic  Church  responsible  for  the  Spanish  InquisS* 
tion  ? — Agency  of  the  Roman  Pontiffs— Their  efforts  to  restrain  cruelty— The  Portuguese  Inquisition. 

The  history  of  few  countries  is  invested  with  greater  interest  than  that 
of  Spain.  Her  annals  are  varied  in  incident,  rich  in  moral,  and  full  of 
instruction  for  the  philosopher  and  Christian.  No  country  of  Europe  has 
preserved  the  spirit  of  mediaeval  chivalry  so  pure,  or  for  so  long  a  time. 
This  spirit  is  impressed  on  all  her  institutions,  and  is  yet  visible  in  the 
high  character  and  lofty  bearing  of  her  people.  The  type  of  her  national 
character  is  still,  to  a  great  extent,  that  of  the  ancient  knights  of  St.Iago, 
of  Calatrava, and  of  Alcantara;  the  only  difference  is,  that  it  has  been 
softened  down  to  suit  the  more  pacific  tendencies  of  the  present  age.  Her 
whole  history  is  replete  with  strange  vicissitudes  and  startling  occurrences. 

No  country,  perhaps,  has  exercised  a  more  powerful  infiuence  on  civili¬ 
zation  in  Europe,  or  done  more  to  extend  its  boundaries  into  regions  remote 
and  before  unknown.  But  for  tlie  liberal  enterprise  and  enliglitened  policy 
of  her  sovereigns,  the  ardor  of  Columbus  might  have  cooled,  and  America 
remained  undiscovered  for  centuries.  With  the  names  of  Alfonso  the  Wise, 
of  Sancho  the  Great,  and  of  Ferdinand  and  Isabella,  among  her  princes  and 
legislators;  with  those  of  Don  Rodrigo  Diaz  del  Bivar,  the  renowned  Cam~ 
pion  or  Cid,  and  of  Gonsalvo  de  Cordova,  the  “great  captain,”  among  her 
generals;  and  with  those  of  Calderon,  Lope  de  Vega,  Cervantes,  Herrera, 
and  Garcilaso  de  la  Vega  among  her  literati,  not  to  mention  many  others, 
she  has  little  to  fear  from  comparison  with  any  othei*  nation.  The  calendar 
is  crowded  with  the  names  of  her  saints  ;  St.  Dominic,  St.  Vincent  Ferrer, 
St.  Teiesa,  St.  Peter  of  Alcantara,  St.  Ignatius,  St.  Francis  Xavier,  and 
hosts  of  others  are  her  patrons  in  heaven. 

The  interest  in  Spanish  history  and  institutions  is  greatly  increased  by 
the  present  critical  condition  of  tliat  country.  The  storm  which  lately 
swept  over  Spain,  threatened  to  destroy  almost  every  monument  of  her 
former  greatness,  and  to  carry  away  every  vestige  of  tlie  middle  ages.  It 
was  an  evil  day  for  Spain  when,  half  a  century  ago,  her  soil  be(;anie  the 

^History  of  tiie  reij^n  of  Ferdinand  and  Isatteila  tlie  Catholic.  By  William  11. 
Prescort.  3  vols.  8  vo.  up.  411,  5011,  and  496.  Boston.  Fifth  edition  1839. 

213 


214 


THE  SPANISH  INQUISITION. 


theatre  of  a  sanguinary  struggle  between  the  hosts  of  France  and  England 
All  her  present  evils  date  back  to  that  ill-fated  period.  The  Peninsulai 
war  sowed  upon  her  soil  the  seeds  of  French  infidelity  and  of  English 
Protestantism,  and  these  seeds  are  now  producing  their  bitter  fruits.  And 
it  is  remarkable  that  the  startling  proceedings  which  took  place  in  Spain 
about  ten  years  ago  were  accordingly  distinguished  by  the  fierce  fanaticism 
of  the  French  revolution,  tempered  with  the  cold,  calculating  policy  of  the 
reformation  in  England  under  Henry  VIII.  We  trace  the  policy  of  Eng¬ 
land  in  the  invasion  of  Church  property,  and  in  the  destruction  of  tlie 
monasteries  ;  and  that  of  France  in  the  massacre  of  the  monks  at  Barcelona 
and  elsewhere. 

Whatever  may  be  the  final  results  of  the  fierce  revolutionary  struggle 
through  which  the  peninsula  has  lately  passed,  one  thing  at  least  appears  to  be 
certain.  The  climate  of  Spain  is  too  warm  for  Protestantism;  on  her  soil  the 
Protestant  sects  would  be  exotics  which  could  have  but  a  sickly  growth  at 
best,  and  which  would  soon  wither  and  die.  The  only  climate  at  all  con¬ 
genial  with  Protestantism  is  the  cold,  calculating  north  ;  it  is  too  dreaiy, 
too  devoid  of  feeling  and  soul,  to  suit  the  ardent  temperament  of  the  south. 
The  Spaniards  are  too  thoroughly  Catholic,  ever  to  be  tainted,  at  least  to 
any  great  extent,  by  the  errors  of  the  last  three  centuries.  The  appeal  of 
the  late  sovereign  Pontiff  in  behalf  of  suffering  Spain,  met  with  such  a 
response,  in  the  bosoms  of  millions  all  over  the  world,  as  bespoke  Catholic 
unity,  and  told  of  the  depths  of  that  sympathy,  which  flows  from  Catholic 
charity.  Only  the  Catholic  Church  can  present  the  spectacle  of  the  whole 
world  thus  forgetting  every  sectional  and  political  difference,  and,  at  the 
voice  of  one  old  man,  kneeling  before  one  common  altar,  and  in  divine 
unison  of  faith  and  feeling,  praying  for  one  common  object.  That  prayer 
was  heard,  and  Spain  has  been  preserved  to  the  Church  ! 

Mr.  Prescott  has  selected  for  the  subject  of  his  work  the  most  interest¬ 
ing  and  brilliant  period  of  Spanish  history.  The  age  of  Ferdinand  and 
Isabella  is  to  Spain,  what  that  of  Louis  XIV.  was  subsequently  to  France  ; 
and  what,  immediately  after,  the  pontificate  of  Leo  X.  was  to  Italy  and  to 
the  world.  It  was  the  era  in  which  she  laid  broad  and  deep  the  founda 
tions  of  that  solid  glory,  which  made  her  for  more  than  two  centuries  the 
first  country  in  Europe.  It  was  the  age  which  witnessed  the  glories  of 
Ponce  De  Leon,  and  of  Gonsalvo  de  Cordova,  in  the  field;  of  Cardinals 
Mendoza  and  Ximenes,  in  the  cabinet ;  and  of  Christopher  Columbus  on 
the  broader  field  of  the  world,  discovering  a  new  continent.  Mr.  Prescott 
could  scarcely  have  chosen  a  loftier  theme.  And  he  has  brought  to  the 
execution  of  his  task  a  great  amount  of  learning,  as  well  as  much  industry 
and  care  in  the  arrangement  of  his  copious  materials.  His  work  manifests 
a  degree  of  research  into  Spanish  history  highly  creditable  to  the  author ; 
the  more  so,  as  in  its  preparation  he  had  to  encounter  for  a  time  the  for¬ 
midable  obstacle  of  almost  tohil  blindness.*  Such  works  may  be  often  met 
with  ill  Italy  or  Germany,  and  occasionally  in  France  or  England,  but  they 


1  See  his  Preface. 


Prescott’s  view. 


215 


are  extremely  rare  in  our  light  and  frivolous  age,  and  yet  more  so  in  our' 
republic,  where  the  utilitarian  system  of  estimating  every  thing  in  dollars 
and  cents,  has  perhaps  taken  deeper  root  than  anywhere  else  in  the  world,- 
The  United  States  may  well  be  proud  of  two  such  historians  as  Prescott 
and  Bancroft. 

It  is  not  our  purpose  to  furnish  a  lengthy  review  of  Mr.  Prescott’s 
history.  It  is  before  the  American  community  and  may  speak  for  itself. 
In  our  opinion  the  style  is  more  natural,  and  better  adapted  to  historical 
narrative  than  the  more  florid  manner  of  Bancroft,  who  seems  to  have 
cauirbt  no  little  of  the  transcendental  and  Bulwerian  infection  of  theVee. 
Wliat  is,  however,  most  pleasing  in  the  history  of  Ferdinand  and  Isabella, 
is  the  array  of  learned  references,  by  which  each  statement  is  sustained. 
Not  only  is  every  original  document  and  work  cited,  but  the  very  edition 
and  page  are  carefully  marked,  so  as  to  facilitate,  in  a  high  degree,  the 
researclies  of  the  scholar  who  might  feel  disposed  to  verify  the  quotations. 
The  statements  of  the  author  may  be  relied  on,  wherever  he  confines 
himself  to  facts,  unless  when  he  views  them  through  the  improper  medium 
of  undue  prejudice,  or  is  misled,  as  to  the  facts  themselves,  by  prejudiced 
'  authority.  Then  he  either  greatly  miscolors,  or  wholly  perverts  the  facts. 
We  will  endeavor  to  show  That  he  has  committed  both  these  faults  in  the 
seventh  Chapter  of  his  first  volume,  pp.  230-269,  whei-e  he  gives  a  detailed 
history  of  the  “  Modern  Inquisition  ”  in  Spain  ;  and  our  remarks  on  his 
history  will  be  confined  to  this  Chapter. 

That  he  was  greatly  under  the  influence  of  anticatholic  prejudice,  we 
infer  from  the  whole  tenor  of  the  Chapter,  which  is  in  fact  as  virulent  a 
libel  upon  Catholicity  as  we  have  ever  chanced  to  read.  To  prove  that 
the  establishment  of  the  Spanish  Inquisition  were  in  accordance  with  the 
piinciples  of  the  Catholic  Church,  he  repeats*  the  stale  calumny  that  a 
Catholic  principle  is  embodied  in  the  odious  proposition,  “the  end  justifies 
the  means.”  He  turns  out  of  his  way  to  attack  the  Catholic  doctrine  of 
confession,  which  he  designates**  an  “artful  institution  ”  of  the  priests,  to 
gain  influence  with  the  people ;  and  to  show  how  Isabella’s  repugnance 
to  the  establishment  of  the  Inquisition  was  overcome,  he  relates  a  very 
simple,  if  not  absurd  anecdote  of  what  passed  between  her  and  her 
confessor,  Talavera.^  In  opposition  to  all  history,  he  still  asserts  that  St. 
Dominic  was  the  founder  of  the  ancient  Inquisition,  or  at  least  maintains 
tliat  if  he  was  not,  in  point  of  fact,  he  ought  to  have  been."*  He  tells,  in 
a  satirical  tone,  of  the  divine  eloquence  and  wonderful  miracles  by  which 
St.  Vincent  Ferrer,  in  the  fourteenth  century,  converted  to  Christianity 
thirty-live  thousand  Spanish  Jews.^  The  sufferings  of  this  unfortunate 
people  enlist  his  deepest  sympathy ;  the  Moors  of  Grenada  have  also  his 
warmest  feelings  ;  these  two  people  seem  to  have  exhausted  his  .stock  of 

1.  Vol  i.  p.  245.  2  Ibid.  p.  246.  3  Ibid. 

4  Tlii^  is  file  purport  of  his  rt-asoning  ( p.  232,  note).  See  La  Cordaire’s  late  work  “.4pology  foi 
the  order  of  St  Doiiiinic,"  in  wbith  this  charge  is  ably  refuted  by  undeniable  evidence. 

5  Vol.  i,  p.  240. 


216 


THE  SPANISH  INQUISITION.  ' 


humanity,  and  lie  has  no  sympathy  to  throw  away  upon  the  Catholic 
Christians  of  Spain  !  Nor  is  he  alone  in  this  respect.  It  is  the  fault  of 
most  Protestant  historians.  Their  sympathies  run  strongly  in  favor  of  Jew, 
Turk,  or  dissenter  of  every  shade  of  opinion,  while  for  the  Catholic  they 
reserve  the  vials  of  their  wrath  !  Is  it,  that  there  is  a  kindred  spirit 
among  errorists  of  every  hue,  a  certain  relationship  which  makes  them 
have  a  tender  feeling  for  one  another  ?  It  would  seem  so.  The  chief 
severity  of  this  remark  consists  in  its  truth  ;  and  we  have  only  to  open 
Protestant  historians  passim,  to  become  persuaded  of  it.  Mr.  Prescott 
furnishes  abundant  evidence  of  this  spirit  throughout  his  work. 

It  was  scarcely  to  be  expected  that,  reared  as  he  evidently  has  been  in 
all  the  prejudices  of  Protestantism,  Mr.  Prescott  should  have  become 
wholly  divested  of  the  early  impressions  of  the  nursery,  so  as  to  approach 
the  subject  of  the  horrible  Spanish  Inquisition,  with  a  calm  mind  and  a 
steady. nerve.  It  was  difficult  to  dispel  the  bloody  phantoms  of  slaugh¬ 
tered  victims,  which  had  haunted  his  early  days,  and  to  get  rid  of  the 
opinions  in  regard  to  that  tribunal  which  had  been  fastened  on  his  mind 
by  the  teachings  of  the  press  and  of  the  pulpit.  But  at  least,  as  a  faithful 
historian,  he  should  have  exhibited  its  redeeming  as  well  as  its  odious 
features  ;  and  to  have  qualified  himself  for  this. task,  he  should  have  read 
both  sides,  and  not  have  suffered  himself  to  be  misled  by  violently 
prejudiced  writers.  That  many  of  those  whom  he  has  followed  are  of 
this  character,  we  will  endeavor  to  show;  and  then  we  will  glance  rapidly 
at  the  principal  works  written  in  defense  of  the  Inquisition,  which  Mr. 
Prescott  seems  either  not  to  have  seen  at  all,  or  not  to  have  read. 

The  historians  of  the  Spanish  Inquisition  most  in  favor  with  Protestants, 
are  Limborch  and  Llorente.  Mr.  Prescott  cites  them  both,  and  bases 
most  of  his  statements  upon  the  authority  of  the  latter,  who  is  so  great  a 
favorite  with  him  as  to  merit  a  special  biographical  notice  at  the  close  of 
his  chapter  on  the  Inquisition.  To  ascertain  how  far  they  are  to  be  relied 
on,  as  historians  of  the  Inquisition,  we  must  see  who  they  were,  under 
what  circumstances  they  wrote  their  respective  histories,  and  what 
motives  prompted  them  to  the  task. 

Philip  Limborch  was  a  native  of  Holland,  and  he  belonged  to  tlie  sect 
of  the  Remonstrants  or  mitigated  Calvinists.  He  was  a  disciple  of  the 
famous  scholar,  Vossius,  who  with  Grotius  had  suffered  so  much  from  the 
intolerant  svnod  of  Dort,  which  in  1619  had  consummated  the  division 
of  the  Dutch  Calvinists.  He  attained  to  considerable  eminence  in  his 
sect,  in  which  he  became  a  minister,  and  subsequently  a  professor  of 
theology  at  Amsterdam.  He  was  not,  however,  very  rigid  in  adhering 
even  to  the  slight  standard  of  orthodoxy  required  by  his  own  party  ;  for 
he  became  a  Unitarian,  and  was  a  great  friend  of  the  noted  Unitarian, 
John  Le  Clerc.  who  'auds  his  widtings  to  the  skies.  Had  John  Calvin 
been  able  to  arise  from  his  tomb,  his  recreant  disciple  might  have  stood  a 
good  chance  to  be  bound  to  the  stake  with  Servetus,  whose  tenets  he  advo¬ 
cated  ;  and  had  the  Gomarist,  or  rigid  Calvinist  party  in  Holland  been 


Prescott’s  view. 


217 


uncliecked  in  enforcing  the  exclusive  and  persecuting  canons  of  Dort, 
Limborch  might  liave  suffered  martyrdom,  or  at  least  have  been  a 
confessor  witli  Grotius  and  Vossius.*  However,  he  escaped  unscathed, 
but  with  a  deep  and  abiding  sense  of  the  wrongs  his  party  had  endured 
from  the  Gomarists.  He  determined  to  shoot  an  arrow  at  them  through 
the  Spaniards,  wliose  very  name  had  been  execrated  in  Holland,  since  the 
days  of  Philip  II.  of  Spain,  and  of  the  duke  of  Alba.  The  memory  of 
the  fierce  and  bloody  struggle  with  the  Spaniards,  in  which  so  many 
harrowing  scenes  had  occurred  on  both  sides,  was  still  fresh  in  the  minds 
of  the  Dutch.  To  be  sure  they  had,  to  say  the  least,  been  guilty  of  as 
much  cruelty,  as  the  duke  of  Alba  and  his  soldiery;  but  this  was 
forgotten,  and  the  cruelty  of  the  Spaniard  was  alone  remembered,  and 
that  Inquisition  which  he  had  in  vain  endeavored  to  establish  in  the  two 
countries  was  viewed  with  inconceivable  horror.  The  very  name  caused 
a  cold  shudder  to  seize  on  every  Hollander.  Limborch  shared  deeply  in 
these  feelings,  and  he  knew  how  extensive  and  how  all  absorbing  they 
were  among  his  countrymen.  He  knew  that  he  could  not  better  cater  to 
their  taste  than  by  writing  a  detailed  history  of  this  odious  tribunal:  and 
he  accordingly  set  about  the  work  and  published  it  in  one  volume  folio,  at 
Amsterdam,  in  1692.  His  anticipations  were  realized;  the  work  was 
received  with  acclamations.  The  minds  of  his  countrymen  were  too  much 
excited  to  enable  them  to  perceive  the  glaring  inaccuracies  and  gross 
misstatements  of  the  book  ;  and  had  he  painted  the  horrors  of  the  Inqui¬ 
sition  with  tenfold  force,  their  deadly  hatred  of  the  tribunal  would  have 
caused  them  to  devour  the  work  without  one  misgiving ! 

Such  was  Limborch.  He  evidently  wrote  his  history  under  such 
excitement  as  would  naturally  lead  us  to  expect  little  of  the  impartiality  , 
of  the  historian,  and  much  of  the  exao'jreration  of  a  man  writincr  aoainst 
a  tribunal  odious  in  a  religious  and  political  point  of  view,  and  pandering 
also  to  a  taste  greatly  vitiated  and  highly  excited.  Accordingly  we  find 
in  his  work  few  of  the  intrinsic  qualities  of  a  veridical  history.  He 
professes  to  derive  his  statements  from  the  works  of  the  Inquisitors  them- 
sehes;  yet  Fra  Paolo,  the  Italian  historian  of  the  council  of  Trent,  whose 
hypocrisy  made  him  conceal  the  mind  and  heart  of  a  Protestant  under 
the  cowl  of  a  Catholic  friar,  and  Dellon,  the  famous  Protestant  autlior  of 
the  too  famous  “Relation  of  the  Inquisition  at  Goa,”  are  among  his 
favorite  authors  for  reference  !  And  when  he  does  cite  the  works  of  the 
inquisitors  themselves,  such  as  Eymerick,  Pegna,  <fec.,  he  garbles  the 
extracts,  quoting  only  what  suits  his  purpose,  very  often  extracting  only 
the  concluding  sentence  from  a  lengthy  passage,  and  thereby  often  making 
the  inquisitors  say  just  the  contrary  of  what  the}^  had  intended.  This 
wretched  cutting  up  of  quotations  is  unpardonable  in  a  work  so  extensive; 
it  would  have  been  bad  enough  in  a  duodecimo,  but  in  a  folio  volume  it 
is  utterly  inexcusable,  and  is  a  strong  evidence  of  bad  faith  in  the  writer, 

1  See  llrandt’H  History,  copious  extracts  from  which  are  cited  in  the  Oral  Discussion  of  Hughes 
and  lireckeiiridge,  on  the  second  question 

X 


'218  THE  .SPANISH  INQUISITION. 

No  wonder  tlmt  Voltaire  and  the  infidels  of  France  received  the  book 
;with  enthusiasm.  It  was  just  the  kind  of  work  they  wanted.  Its  whole 
tendency  was  to  throw  odium  on  the  Catliolic  priesthood,  whom  it 
represented  as  gloating  over  the  blood  of  their  victims.  But  we  are  a 
little  surprised  that  the  Abbe  Marsollier,  a  cotemporary  French  Catliolic 
priest,  should  have  presented  it,  in  an  abridged  foi-m,  to  the  French  people 
in  their  own  language,  and  that  many  very  estimable  French  writers 
should  have  been  misled  by  its  statements.  A  morbid  appetite  seems  to 
have  seized  upon  the  French  people  about  that  time.  Writers,  male  and 
female,  published  works  on  Spain.  Madame  d’Aunoy  wrote  a  book 
remarkable  for  its  gross  inaccuracy,  in  regard  to  the  Spanish  Inquisition, 
and  for  its  caustic  ridicule  of  everything  Spanish.  The  Abb6  De  Vayrac, 
who  had  spent  twenty  years  of  his  active  life  in  Spain,  answered  these 
misrepresentations  in  his  famous  work  “  L’Etat  present  d’Espagne,” 
published  at  Amsterdam,  in  1719,  4  vols.  12mo.  He  proved  that  the 
statements  of  Limborch  and  Madame  d’Aunoy,  in  regard  to  the  Spanish 
Inquisition  were  greatly  exaggerated,  or  positively  false.  No  one  was 
better  calculated  to  write  on  Spanish  affairs,  than  the  Abbe  ;  but  so 
vitiated  was  the  taste  of  his  day,  even  in  France,  that  the  work  caused  a 
great  outcry,  and  the  author  had  to  encounter  a  storm  of  opposition.  In 
the  preface  to  a  second  edition  of  his  work,  he  ably  defends  himself  from 
charires  made  ao-ainst  his  statements  under  five  different  heads:  with  what 
effect  on  his  cotemporaries,  history  does  not  tell.  It  is  much  to  be 
regretted  that  this  work  of  De  Vayrac  is  not  more  generally  known. 

But  the  most  popular  history  of  the  Spanish  Inquisition  among  the 
enemies  of  this  tribunal,  is  that  by  Don  Juan  Antonio  Llorente,  publisiied 
at  Paris,  1818,  in  four  volumes,  8vo.  A  brief  sketch  of  this  remarkable 
man’s  life,  will  show  us  what  motives  prompted  the  publication  of  this 
work.  He  was  born  at  Calahorra  in  Spain,  A.  D.  1756.  He  studied  for 
the  Church,  took  the  degree  of  bachelor  in  theology,  with  considerable 
credit,  and  was  ordained  priest  at  an  early  age.  A  singular  incident 
occurred  at  his  ordination  :  after  the  consecration  in  which  he  had 
recited  the  sacred  words  of  Christ,  together  with  the  ordaining  bisliop,  he 
was  seized  with  a  sudden  illness,  which  prevented  his  receiving  the  holy 
communion :  some  viewed  the  occurrence  as  ominous.  His  first  work 
after  ordination  was  a  comedy  “on  matrimony,”  *  which,  however,  at  the 
earnest  solicitations  of  a  friend,  he  consented  to  burn.  When  subsequently 
vicar  general  of  the  diocese  of  Calahorra,  he  composed  another  comedy, 
and  had  it  acted  on  the  stage,  very  little  to  the  edification  of  the  people  and 
of  tiie  clergy  of  that  city.  So  great  was  his  passion  for  this  kind  of 
writing,  that  when  afterwards  wholly  engaged  in  politics,  he  employed 
his  leisure  hours  in  translating  into  Spanish  many  of  the  unchaste  poems 
of  the  lascivious  Casti  !  His  was  a  troubled  and  restless  spirit.  Not 
content  with  his  retirement  at  Calahorra,  he  proceeded  to  Madrid,  where 
he  spent  his  time  intriguing  for  place.  He  succeeded,  and  rose  step  by 


1  £1  Matrimonio  a  desgusto. 


Prescott’s  view. 


219 


step,  until  he  became  secretary  of  the  Inquisition  at  Madrid,  an  office 
which  he  held  from  1790  to  1792.  Having  been  guilty  of  a  grievous 
betrayal  of  the  confidence  reposed  in  him  by  the  Inquisitor  General,  and 
of  several  other  irregularities  of  conduct,  he  was  ordered  to  leave  Madrid, 
and  to  repair  to  his  native  place. 

Here  he  was  equally  restless  and  intriguing.  Detected  by  the  Spanish 
government  in  a  secret  correspondence  with  the  emissaries  of  the  French 
republic  in  1793,  and  suspected  of  other  misdemeanors,  he  was  arrested, 
and  sent  by  the  Inquisition,  not  into  a  dungeon,  but  merely  into  a  retired 
convent  of  the  Recollects  at  some  distance  from  Calahorra,  to  compose  in 
solitude  his  restless  spirit  and  to  do  penance  for  his  sins.  Among  his 
writings  which  were  seized,  several  were  found  against  the  Spanish 
government,  against  the  Holy  See,  and  against  the  Inquisition.  And  yet, 
strange  cruelty  of  the  bloody  Inquisition !  upon  his  writing  letters  full 
of  repentance  and  abject  submission,  he  was  released  from  his  place  of 
retreat,  and  again  received  into  favor.  He  now  made  his  appearance  at 
court,  and  pushed  his  fortunes  more  rapidly  than  ever.  By  the  aid  of 
powerful  friends,  he  was  soon  created  canon  of  Toledo,  and  received  the 
cross  of  the  order  of  Charles  III.  At  the  court  of  Ferdinand  VII.,  he  was 
loaded  with  honors;  and  yet,  on  the  first  invasion  of  the  French,  he 
sought  out  Murat,  their  commander  in  chief,  turned  traitor  to  his  country, 
and  ranged  himself  on  the  side  of  her  enemies  !  He  repaired  to  Bayonne 
to  pay  his  court  to  the  new  king,  Joseph  Buonaparte,  took  the  oath  of 
fidelity  to  him,  and  was  appointed  one  of  his  secret  counselors.  He  now 
gave  himself  up  entirely  to  politics ;  abandoning  every  ecclesiastical 
function,  some  say,  even  doffing  the  ecclesiastical  habit. 

Charged  by  Joseph  Buonaparte  with  a  commission  for  the  suppression  of 
the  convents  in  Spain,  he  discharged  his  office  with  singular  zeal  and 
efficiency.  In  1809,  he  was  ordered  by  Joseph  to  write  a  history  of  the 
Spanish  Inquisition,  and  he  was  no  doubt  well  paid  for  his  labor.  He 
knew  well  what  kind  of  a  work  would  suit  the  palate  of  his  royal  master, 
and  what  kind  of  a  work  he  was  expected  to  write.  He  set  about  his  task 
with  great  ardor  ;  but  owing  to  the  expulsion  of  the  French  from  Spain, 
and  to  other  causes,  he  was  not  able  to  complete  it  until  nine  years  later. 
He  fled  to  Paris  with  his  royal  patron,  and  after  having  taken  temporary 
sheltor  in  England,  he  returned  to  Paris,  after  the  treaty  of  Vienna,  in  1815. 

Nothing  shows  more  fully  his  restless  ambition  and  his  total  want  of 
principle,  than  the  course  which  he  now  adopted.  Finding  that  the  sun 
of  the  Buonaparte  family  had  set  forever,  he  determined  again  to  pay  his 
court  to  that  Ferdinand  whom  he  had  abandoned  and  betrayed!  He 
employed  his  usual  weapon  of  low  adulation,  wrote  a  genealogi(;al  table 
of  the  royal  family,  and  addressed  letters  full  of  flattery  to  the  king  and 
to  the  chapter  at  Toledo.  But  all  was  unavailing  :  his  letters  remained 
unnoticed.  Then  it  was  that  he  gave  way  to  all  the  bitterness  of  his 
spirit  He  wrote  his  portraits  of  the  Popes,  full  of  invective  and  misrep¬ 
resentation.  When  accused  of  gallantry  with  a  French  countess,  at  tlie  age 


220 


THE  SPANISH  INQUISITION. 


of  sixt3^-six,  his  friends  defended  him  on  the  ground  that  he  had  previously 
married  her,  tliough  he  was  a  priest  who  had  vowed  celibacy  !  He  was 
finally  banished  from  France,  by  the  French  government,  for  improper 
conduct,'  and  died  shortly  after  at  Madrid,  February  25th,  1823,  in  the 
sixty-seventh  year  of  his  age.  Had  the  Spanish  government  and  the 
Inquisition  been  such  as  he  had  represented  them,  he  would  not  perhaps 
have  been  permitted  to  re-enter  Spain,  and  to  terminate  his  life  peacefully 
in  his  own  country. 

Such  was  Llorente,  a  traitor  to  his  country,  and  probably  to  his  religion; 
who  tried  to  play  off,  in  Spanish  affairs,  the  same  part  that  Talleyrand  did 
in  those  of  France,  but  failed  for  want  of  tlie  genius  of  the  latter.  He  was 
in  Spain  the  counterpart  of  Fra  Paolo  in  Italy,  and  of  Courayer  and  Du 
Pin  in  France.  Could  we  expect  an  impartial  history  of  the  Spanish 
Inquisition  from  such  a  man  ?  He  alters  texts  to  suit  his  own  purposes, 
and  gives  us  only  his  own  word  for  most  of  his  statements.  To  show  how 
little  his  assertions  are  to  be  relied  on,  in  a  pamphlet  published  at  Paris  in 
1818,  he  boldly  asserted  that,  between  the  years  1700  and  1808,  the 
Spanish  Inquisition  had  immolated  at  the  stake  no  less  than  fifteen  hundred 
and  seventy -eight  victims.  This  is  not  only  a  gross  exaggeration,  but  a 
manifest  misstatement.^  Since  the  accession  of  the  house  of  Bourbon  to 
the  Spanish  throne  in  1709,  it  would  be  difficult  to  prove  that  one  victim 
was  so  immolated,  or  suffered  capital  punishment  in  any  other  way, 
through  the  agency  of  the  Inquisition  ;  and  neither  Llorente  nor  any  other 
man  has  furnished  proofs  to  the  contrary.  During  this  period,  and  for  a 
long  time  previous,  the  chief  inmates  of  the  Inquisition  were  state 
prisoners  guilty  of  high  political  misdemeanors,  who  had  either  accused 
themselves  of  imaginary  crimes  against  religion,  to  avoid  the  greater  rigors 
of  the  civil  courts,  or  had  been  sent  there  by  the  Spanish  government  in 
order  to  prevent  the  eclat  of  a  public  trial.  The  terrible  Inquisition  thus 
became  little  more,  under  the  Bourbon  dynasty  in  Spain,  than  a  department 
of  the  police. 

Among  the  writers  who  have  defended  the  Spanish  Inquisition,  besides 
the  Abbe  De  Vayrac,  mentioned  above.  Count  De  Maistre,^  and  La  Cor- 
daire,^  are  the  most  distinguished.  The  works  of  both  these  conspicuous 
men  are  already  before  the  American  public,  and  it  is  unnecessary  to  offer 
much  comment  on  them.  La  Cordaire  devotes  two  chapters  of  his  work 
to  the  Inquisition,  of  which  he  treats  only  in  its  connection  with  his  main 
subiect  —  the  defence  of  the  ord^r  of  St.  Dominic.  He  adduces  few 
facts  or  arguments,  which  had  not  been  already  ably  handled  by  De 

1  The  writer  of  his  life,  prefixed  to*his  “  History  of  the  Inquisition,”  ascribes  his  banishment  from 
France  to  the  persecution  of  the  French  clergy.  Mr.  Prescott  hitjts  at  tlie  same  cause.  But  we 
think  that  the  true  cause  is  to  be  found  in  his  own  restless  ambition,  and  the  jealousy  of  the 
French  government. 

‘2  Mr.  I'rescott  detects  many  gross  historical  inaccuracies  in  Llorente,  unconnected  with  the 
Inquisiiion,  in  painting  which,  according  to  him,  he  was  never  at  fault!  See  Prescott,  vol.  i, 
p.  250,  note;  vol.  ii.  p.  108,  note. 

3  In  his  ‘‘  l,cMeis  on  the  Spanish  Inqui.sition.” 

4  ‘‘Apology  for  the  order  of  St.  Dominic,”  18mo,  p.  143. 


Prescott’s  view. 


221 


Maistre,  whose  work  had  been  considered  by  many  as  the  best  which  has 
ever  appeared  on  the  subject.  Its  chief  fault  is  its  brevity.  We  rise  from 
its  perusal  with  a  desire  to  know  more.  Perhaps,  too,  the  author  has 
indulged  rather  too  much  in  philosophic  speculation,  and  has  advanced 
some  principles  for  the  defence  of  the  odious  tribunal,  which  its  enemies 
would  scarcely  admit.  Had  he  been  less  apparently  solicitous  to  defend 
everything  connected  with  the  Inquisition,  and  had  he  given  up  certain 
things,  which  are  wholly  indefensible,  his  woik  would  have  carried  with 
it  a  greater  appearance  of.  candor  and  plausibility.  Catholicity  never  can 
be  injured  by  the  truth.  There  is  also  a  certain  vagueness,  and  some¬ 
thing  that  savors  of  inconsistency.  Thus,  for  example,  in  his  last  letter, 
he  says:  “  The  tribunal  of  the  Inquisition  is  purely  royal,”  and  yet  a  little 
farther  on,  he  remarks,  quoting  from  the  report  of  the  Cortes:  “  These  tribu¬ 
nals  (the  Inquisition)  are  thus  at  once  ecclesiastical  and  royal,”  &c.  He 
meant  to  say,  wJiat  the  truth  of  history  warrants,  that  of  the  two  tribunals 
of  the  Inquisition  the  royal  is  predominant,  and  generally  paramount  in 
its  authority ;  but  it  would  have  been  better  to  have  been  more  explicit. 
Notwithstanding  these  defects,  the  work  of  De  Maistre  is  still  excellent, 
and  no  one  can  peruse  it  without  thinking  better  of  the  Inquisition. 

The  best  compendious  view  of  the  subject  which  we  have  ever  seen,  is 
an  essay  by  John  Murary,  inserted  in  a  late  work  published  by  him  in 
London.*  But  a  full,  fair,  and  extensive  history  of  the  Inquisition, —  one 
that  might,  by  its  learning,  serve  as  an  antidote  to  those  of  Limborch  and 
Llorente, —  is  still  b,  desideratura  \n  our  Catholic  literature.  It  requires 
the  extensive  learning  and  patient  research  of  a  Dr.  Lingard,  or  a  Dr. 
Wiseman,  to  dispel  the  clouds  which  have  hung  around  the  tribunal  for 
centuries,  and  to  present  to  the  world,  in  the  terse  and  condensed  style  of 
the  one,  or  the  copious  and  luminous  details  of  the  other,  such  a  history 
as  the  importance  of  the  subject  demands. 

Yet  enough  has  been  already  published  to  enable  us  to  detect  many  of 
the  ina(;curacies  of  Mr.  Prescott,  in  his  history  of  the  “  Modern  Inquisi¬ 
tion  ”  in  Spain.  To  attempt  to  review  all  of  his  statements  in  detail,  would 
swell  this  essay  to  an  unwarrantable  length  :  we  will  confine  ourselves  to 
certain  general  erroneous  views,  which  pervade  the  entire  history,  cover 
the  whole  ground  of  the  controversy,  and  include  the  minor  inaccuracies. 
We  have  already  endeavored  to  trace  the  sources  of  these  errors  in  the 
authors  whom  he  has  chiefly  followed. 

Mr.  Prescott  views  the  Inquisition  as  a  religious,  and  not  as  a  political 
institution  ascribes  its  establishment,  notwithstanding  the  repugnance  of 
Isabella,  to  the  importunities  of  the  clergy,®  and  the  fanaticism  ofi  the 
people,  demanding  the  sacrifice  of  the  Jews,  through  selfish  motives  and 
religious  hatred  of  that  race  and  he  more  than  intimates  that  the  tribunal, 
with  all  its  laws  and  proceedings,  was  but  a  carrying  out  of  the  principles 

1  A  compendium  of  modern  geography.  1  Tol.  8vo,  p.  393. 

2  Voi.  1,  p.  245,  note.  At  leuBt  he  asserts  this  in  regard  to  the  Inquisition  established  in  Castile. 

8  Vol.  1,  pp.  249,  260,  et  seq.  4  lb.  pp.  243,  244,  tt  seq, 

X2 


2z2  THp.  SPANISH  INQUISITION. 

of  the  Catholic  Church.*  He  presents’  a  very  daik  picture  of  its  forms 
of  trial,  of  tlie  presumptive  proofs  of  Judaism,  of  tlie  vaiious  forms  of 
torture,  and  of  the  awful  autos  da.  giving  only  tliose  details  which 
were  calculated  to  make  the  institution  appeal-  odious,  and  mixing  up  with 
his  account  of  the  original  Inquisition,  established  by  Ferdinand  and 
Isabella,  many  forms  and  abuses,  which,  if  tl-.ey  ever  existed  at  all, 
certainly  belong  to  a  much  later  period.  To  make  the  Catholic  church 
appear  in  a  still  more  odious  light  in  the  whole  matter,^  h.e  says,  that  the 
Roman  Pontiff,  Sixtus  IV'.,  was  moved  to  the  publication  of  his  first  bull 
regarding  the  Inquisition,  in  1478,  by  “the  sources  of  wealth  and  influ¬ 
ence  which  this  measure  opened  to  the  court  of  Rome.” 

To  these  charges  most  of  the  others  may  be  reduced.  These  are  the 
shades :  we  will  endeavor  to  exhibit  some  of  the  lights  of  the  picture. 
We  will  accordingly  now  proceed  to  establish,  by  summary  proofs,  the 
three  following  propositions,  which,  it  will  be  seen,  are  diametrically 
opposed  to  the  assertions  of  Mr.  Prescott.  Audi  alteram  'partem, —  hear 
the  other  side  : — 

I.  The  Spanish  Inquisition  was  mainly  a  political  institution, 
and  the  result  of  extraordinary  political  circumstances. 

II.  Its  cruelties  have  been  greatly  exaggerdted. 

III.  The  Catholic  Church  is  not  responsible  for  the  institution 
itself,  much  less  for  its  abuses,  real  or  alleged. 

I.  It  requires  but  a  slight  acquaintance  with  Spanish  history  to  be  con¬ 
vinced  of  the  fact,  that  the  Inquisition  in  that  country  was  an  instrument 
of  state  policy,  employed  under  circumstances  of  high  political  excitement. 
The  causes  which  led  to  its  establishment  had  been  steadily  operating  for 
nearly  eight  hundred  years.  In  711,  the  Moors  had  invaded  Spain, 
seized  upon  its  finest  provinces,  driven  the  original  inhabitants  into  the 
mountains  of  the  Asturias,  and  fastened  a  galling  foreign  yoke  upon  the  neck 
of  a  hitherto  free  people.  But  the  Spaniards  did  not  tamely  submit  to  foreign 
oppression :  with  the  stern,  unyielding  perseverance  which  belongs  to 
their  national  character,  they  maintained  the  unequal  contest  with  the 
enemy  which  had  overpowered  them  and  crushed  their  liberties.  From 
the  council  held  by  the  fugitive  Spanish  chiefs  in  the  cave  of  Cavadonga, 
in  711,  to  the  conquest  of  Grenada,  in  1492,  the  great  struggle  for  the 
mastery  continued  between  the  two  races  with  but  little  intermission. 
Kever  was  there  a  contest  of  so  long  a  continuance,  or  which  resulted  in 
a  political  hatred  so  deep  and  abiding.  It  was  a  civil  and  a  border  war, 
between  two  races  which  could  never  amalgamate,  because  kept  asunder 
by  different  religions,  different  temperaments,  and  difterent  interests.  The 
Spaniards  were  fighting  for  their  liberties,  for  their  fii-esides,  and  their 
altars:  the  Moors  sought  to  annihilate  the  one,  and  to  pollute  and  desecrate 
the  other.  All  prisoners  taken  in  war  by  the  latter  were  sold  into  bondage 


1  Ibid.  vol.  i,  pp.  245, 246,  248,  and  throughout  the  chapter. 

2  lb.  p.  255,  et  seq. 


3  lb.  p.  248 


Prescott’s  view. 


223 


in  Morocco,  and  religious  orders  were  established  by  the  Christians  for  the 
redemption  of  these  forlorn  captives.  The  war  thus  assumed  a  religious 
cast,  and  the  military  orders  of  St.  lago,  of  Calatrava,  and  of  Alcantara, 
were  established  among  the  Spaniards  to  keep  up  the  crusade  against  the 
enemies  of  their  country  and  of  their  religion. 

Can  we  wonder  that,  under  all  these  circumstances,  the  Spaniards 
should  have  had  a  deadly  political  hatred  of  the  Moors  ?  Can  we  be 
surprised  that,  when  this  great  struggle  was  approaching  its  crisis  in  the 
brilliant  reign  of  Ferdinand  and  Isabella,  and  when,  for  the  first  time  for 
seven  hundred  and  eighty-one  years,  the  Spanish  nation  had  a  fair  oppor¬ 
tunity  to  shake  off  the  yoke,  this  political  feeling  should  have  increased 
to  a  fearful  excitement?  And  that  this  excitement  should  have  manifested 
itself  in  the  establishment  of  a  tribunal  of  great  severity,  to  assist  the 
government  in  ferreting  out  the  Moors,  and  in  expelling  them  from  the 
country?  We  are  rather  surprised,  that  so  much  moderation  was 
evinced  under  circumstances  so  exciting.  After  the  conquest  of  Grenada, 
in  1492,  the  Moors  were  allowed  the  free  exercise  of  their  religion,  and  it 
was  only  after  repeated  rebellions,  both  in  Grenada,  and  in  different  parts 
of  the  ancient  Moorish  kingdom  of  that  name,  that  the  Spanish  government 
resorted  to  the  extreme  measure  of  leaving  the  Moors  no  alternative  but 
to  embrace  Christianity  or  leave  the  country.*  The  bitter  experience  of 
nearly  eight  centuries  had  convinced  the  Spaniards  that  the  name  of  a 
Moor  was  identified  with  that  of  a  traitor  and  enemy  of  his  country  and 
of  religion. 

Intercepted  letters  in  cipher  proved  that,  after  the  conquest  of  Grenada, 
the  Moors  were  concertincr  with  their  brethren  in  Africa  measures  for 
regaining  their  lost  power  in  Spain.  The  Jews,  who  were  very  rich,  who 
were  scattered  all  over  Spain,  and  were  intermarried  with  the  most 
opulent  Spanish  families,**  were  also  deeply  engaged  in  these  plots. ^  They 
were,  if  possible,  more  odious  in  Spain  than  the  Moors  themselves. 
They  were,  likewise,  accused  of  other  crimes  of  dreadful  atrocity  :  of 
kidnapping  Christian  children,'*  and  of  selling  them  into  bondage  into 
Africa,  and  even  of  feasting  on  the  flesh  of  infant  Christian  babes,  at  the 
celebration  of  their  passover  They  had  monopolized  the  trade  of  the 
country,  and,  by  usury  and  extortion,  had  fattened  on  “  the  spoils  of  the 
Egyptians”  (Christians),  in  Spain.  As  early  as  the  year  1391,  popular 
indignation  against  this  unhappy  people  had  burst  forth  into  an  insurrec¬ 
tion,  in  which  many  of  them  were  massacred.  Other  countries  witnessed 
similar  scenes  about  the  same  time.®  The  expulsion  of  the  Jews  from 

1  Mr.  Prescott  admits  this,  but  still  labors  to  prove  that  the  indiscreet  zeal  of  Cardinal  Ximenei 
led  him  to  adopt  such  measures  for  proselytizing  the  Moors  of  Grenada,  as  infringed  the  treaty  made 
with  them,  and  stimulated  them  to  rebellion.  Yet  the  facts  he  alleges  scarcely  prove  this.  Prescott, 
Tol.  ii,  ch.  6.  report  of  Cortes. 

3  .Mr.  Prescott  says.  vol.  i,  p.  136,  that  they  were  accused  “  perhaps  with  reason,”  with  having 
facilitated  the  first  Saracenic  inva.sion. 

4  Similar  charges  were  made  against  the  Moors  after  theconquest  of  Grenada.  See  an  interesting 

paragraph  in  Prescott,  vol.  i,  p.  253.  5  See  Prescott,  vol.  ii,  p.  136. 

6  >ee  I'rescott,  vol.  ii,  p  152;  note.  Was  Frederic  the  Great,- of  Prussia,  actuated  by  religious 
bigotry,  in  expelling  the  Jews,  in  the  last  century  ’ 


224 


THE  SPANISH  INQUISITION. 


Spain,  was  demanded  by  the  popular  voice  ;  but  the  government,  content 
with  some  seve  -e  measures  of  precaution  against  them,  resisted  this 
appeal  for  nearly  a  hundred  years,  and  it  was  only  after  the  Jews  were 
known  to  be  leagued  with  the  Moors  for  the  subversion  of  Spanish  liberty, 
and  after  they  had  been  detected  in  writing  a  libel '  on  the  Spanish 
government,  that  the  edict  for  their  banishment  was  published,  and  the 
tribunal  of  the  Inquisition  established  to  carry  it  into  execution. 

In  order  the  better  to  understand  this  whole  history,  let  us  put  a  parallel 
case.  Suppose  the  Indian  tribes  on  our  western  frontier  should  invade 
one  of  our  western  states,  should  subdue  the  finest  portion  of  it,  and 
drive  such  of  the  original  inhabitants,  as  had  not  fallen  under  the 
tomahawk  and  scalping  knife,  into  remote  and  unproductive  portions  of 
the  state.  Suppose  that  they  should  establish  a  new  government  on  the 
ruins  of  the  old,  and  that  a  bloody  border  war  should  be  carried  on  for 
centuries  between  them  and  the  original  inhabitants,  and  that  these  should 
at  length  succeed  in  regaining  their  lost  territory.  But  to  make  the 
parallel  complete,  suppose  that  among  the  whites,  a  large  and  opulent 
party  should  be  found  leagued  with  the  Indians,  and  employing  every 
intrigue  to  maintain  their  usurpation,  would  any  one  be  surprised  if  this 
party  should  become  more  odious  than  the  Indians  themselves  ?  And  if 
popular  indignation  should  be  enkindled  against  them,  even  before  the 
expulsion  of  the  Indians,  would  it  not  be  perfectly  natural  ?  But  if  the 
Indians,  after  having  been  subdued,  should  be  suffered  to  remain  in  the 
country  with  all  their  national  usages  untouched,  and  should  be  expelled, 
only  after  repeated  attempts  on  their  part,  to  regain  their  lost  dominion ; 
would  not  this  be  viewed  as  an  evidence  of  unwonted  lenity  ?  And,  if 
even  after  this  continued  treachery,  they  should  be  still  suffered  to  remain 
in  the  country,  provided  they  would  conform  to  the  religion  and  usages 
of  the  whites,  would  we  not  consider  it  a  clemency,  astonishing  even  in 
this  age  of  boasted  refinement  ?  For  the  whites  expelled  from  their 
homes,  substitute  the  Spaniards  ;  for  the  Indians,  substitute  the  Moors, 
and  for  the  treacherous  party  among  the  whites,  the  Jews ;  and  the  case 
will  apply  to  the  condition  of  Spain,  on  the  establishment  of  the  Inquisition. 

Leopold  Rank6,  an  unexceptionable  Protestant  witness,  gives  the 
following  opinion  concerning  Llorente  and  the  Spanish  Inquisition  :  — 

“  Llo rente  has  given  us  a  famous  book  on  this  subject,  and  if  I  may 
presume  to  say  anything  that  contravenes  the  opinion  of  such  a  prede¬ 
cessor,  let  my  excuse  be  that  this  well-informed  author  wrote  in  the 
interest  of  the  Afrancesados of  the  Josephine  administi-ation.  In  that 
interest,  he  disputes  the  immunities  of  the  Basque  provinces,  though  these 
were  liardly  to  be  denied.  In  that  interest  too,  he  looks  on  the  Inquisition 
as  an  usurpation  of  the  spiritual  over  the  secular  authority.  Nevertheless, 
if  I  am  not  altogether  in  error,  it  appears,  even  from  his  own  facts,  that 
the  Inquisitiod'  was  a  royal  court  of  judicature,  only  armed  with  ecclesias¬ 
tical  weapons. 

1  Mr.  Prescott  mentions  this  fact,  vol.  i,  p  249.  But  why  hide  away  ia  a  note  a  fact,  which  had 
60  great  an  influence  on  the  destiny  of  this  miserable  people? 

2  The  Spanish  party  devoted  to  French  interests. 


Prescott’s  view. 


225 


“In  the  first  place,  the  inquisitors  were  royal  officers.  The  kings  had 
the  right  of  appointing  and  dismissing  them  ;  the  kings  had,  among  the 
various  councils  at  their  court,  a  council  likewise  of  the  Inquisition  :  the 
coui  ts  of  the  Inquisition  were  subject,  like  other  magistracies,  to  royal 
visiters ;  tlie  same  men  were  often  assessors  therein,  who  sat  in  the 
supreme  court  of  Castile.  It  was  to  no  purpose  Ximenes  scmpled  to 
admit  into  the  council  of  the  Inquisition  a  layman  nominated  by  Ferdinand 
the  Catholic.  ‘  Do  you  not  know,’  said  the  king,  ‘  that  if  this  tribunal 
possesses  jurisdiction,  it  is  from  the  king  it  derives  it  ?  ’  *  * 

“  In  the  second  place,  all  the  pi-ofit  of  the  confiscations  by  this  court 
accrued  to  the  king.  These  were  carried  out  in  a  very  unsparing  manner. 
Claims  were  laid  even  to  the  presents  which  had  been  made  by  the 
,  condemned  long  before  their  trials,  and  to  the  portions  they  had  bestowed 
on  their  daughters.  Though  the  fueros  (privileges)  of  Aragon  forbade 
the  king  to  confiscate  the  property  of  his  convicted  subjects,  he  deemed 
himself  exalted  above  the  law  in  matters  pertaining  to  this  court.  It  was 
calculated  in  the  year  1522,  that  the  property  of  those  alone  who  had 
voluntarily  pleaded  guilty  of  heres}^  had,  even  in  the  short  period  since 
the  accession  of  Charles,  brought  him  in  upwards  of  a  million  of  ducats. 
The  proceeds  of  these  confiscations  formed  a  sort  of  regular  income  for 
the  royal  exchequer.  It  was  even  believed  and  asserted  from  the 
beginning,  that  the  kings  had  been  moved  to  establish  and  countenance 
this  tribunal,  more  by  their  hankering  after  the  wealth  it  confiscated,  than 
by  motives  of  piety. 

“  In  the  third  place,  it  was  the  Inquisition,  and  the  Inquisition  alone, 
that  completely  shut  out  all  extraneous  interference  with  the  state  ;  the 
sovereign  had  now  at  his  disposal  a  tribunal,  from  which  no  grandee,  no 
archbishop,  could  withdraw  himself.  Foreigners  were  particularly  struck 
with  this  fact.  ‘The  Inquisition,’  says  Segni,  ‘was  invented  to  rob  tho 
wealthy  of  their  property,  and  the  powerful  of  their  consequence.’  As 
Charles  knew  no  other  means  of  bringing  certain  punishment  upon  the 
bishops  who  had  taken  part  in  the  insurrection  of  the  Gommunidades ,  ‘  he 
chose  to  have  them  judged  by  the  Inquisition.  Philip  II.,  despairing  of 
being  able  to  punish  Antonio  Perez,  called  in  the  aid  of  tlie  Inquisition. 
For  open  heresy  was  not  the  only  question  it  had  to  try.  Already 
Ferdinand  had  felt  the  advantages  it  afforded,  and  had  enlarged  the  sphere 
of  its  activity.  Under  Philip  it  interfered  in  matters  of  trade  and  of  the 
arts,  of  customs  and  marine.  How  much  further  could  it  go,  when  it 
pronounced  it  heresy  to  dispose  of  horses  or  munition  to  France  ? 

“  Accordingly,  as  this  court  derived  its  autliority  from  the  king,  it 
directed  it  to  the  advantage  of  the  royaPpower.  It  was  a  portion  of  those 
spolia  of  the  ecclesiastical  power,  by  which  the  government  was  made 
mighty  ;  such  as  the  administration  of  tlie  grand  masterships,^  and  tlie 
appointment  of  the  bishops.  It  Avas  in  spirit,  and  tendency  above  all,  a. 
political  institution.  The  Pope  had  an  interest  in  thwarting  it  ;  and 
HE  DID  so,  and  as  OFTEN  AS  HE  COULD.  But  the  king  had  an  interest  in 
constantly  upholding  it.”  ^ 

This  Avas  a  merely  religious  tribunal,  forsooth  !  The  Avhole  texture  of 
its  constitution  was  as  political  as  was  its  origin.  The  king  named  the 

1  The  Communes,  who  were  struggling  for  their  rights  and  liberties,  (fueros)  against  tlie- 
encroachments  of  royal  prerogative.  The  bishops  took  the  side  of  the  people  in  the  contest ; — a 
fact  as  striking  as  it  is  honorable. 

2  Of  the  military  orders,  which  were  very  rich  and  influential. 

8  “The  Ottoman  and  Spanish  Empires  in  the  sixteenth  and  seventeenth  ceiiturie.s ;  by  Leopold 
Ranke,  etc.”  Philadelphia  Lea  and  Blanchard ;  1845,  p.  78-9. 

18 


226 


THE  SPANISH  INQUISITION. 


Inquisitor  General,  who,  with  the  approval  of  the  king,  named  the 
subordinate  officers  of  the  tribunal.  The  whole  institution  was  under  the 
control  of  the  royal  council,  without  the  sanction  of  which  it  was 
powerless :  while  the  king  with  his  council  could  stay  any  prosecution,  or 
crush  any  process  at  will.  ^  So  manifest  was  it  to  the  whole  world,  that 
this  tribunal  was  a  local  political  institution,  growing  out  of  circumstances 
peculiar  to  Spain,  and  designed  only  for  the  Jews  and  Moors,  that  when 
subsequently  the  Spanish  government,  under  Philip  II.,  sought  to  establish 
it  in  Milan,  the  people  revolted,  exclaiming  “  that  it  was  tyranny  to  impose 
on  a  Christian  city,  a  form  of  Inquisition  designed  for  Moors  and  Jews.”  ’ 
And  so  intimately  was  it  connected  with  Spanish  politics,  that  the  great 
Charles  V.,  in  a  codicil  to  his  will,  recommended  it  specially  to  his  son 
Philip  II.,  as  an  institution  “  upon  which  the  safety  of  Spain  depended.”  ^ 
In  1812,  the  famous  convention  of  the  Spanish  Cortes,  assembled  for 
drafting  a  new  constitution,  appointed  a  special  committee  to  draw  up  a 
report  on  the  Spanish  Inquisition.  The  learned  men  who  drew  up  this 
able  document,  were  no  doubt  well  acquainted  with  Spanish  history  and 
politics,  and  they  are  unexceptionable  witnesses  on  another  account, — 
they  were  violently  opposed  to  the  Inquisition.  Yet  they  assert,  that  “it 
was  an  institution  demanded  and  established  by  the  monarchs  of  Spain  in 
difficult  and  extraordinary  circumstances.”  ®  And  M.  Guizot,  a  famous 
historian,  and,  though  a  Calvinist,  the  late  prime  minister  of  Catholic 
France,  says:  “that it  was  at  first  more  political  than  religious,  and 
destined  to  maintain  order,  rather  than  to  defend  the  faith.”'* 

II.  Much  more  might  be  said  on  this  branch  of  the  subject,  but  we  must 
hasten  to  the  proofs  of  the  second  proposition,  in  which  we  will  endeavor 
to  show  that  Mr.  Prescott  has  drawn  too  dark  a  picture  of  the  Inquisition, — 
of  its  forms  of  procedure,  and  of  its  abuses  and  cruelties.  Our  limits  will 
allow  only  a  bare  statement  of  the  facts  :  our  readers  will  readily  make  the 
eomments.  Far  be  it  from  us  to  defend  many  abuses  of  this  tribunal, 
which,  as  we  shall  show,  the  Popes  and  the  Church  uniformly  condemned. 
Under  the  circumstances  of  extraordinary  excitement  which  gave  rise  to 
the  Inquisition,  it  was  natural  to  expect  some  unnecessary  severity ;  and 
the  authority  of  the  famous  Spanish  historian  Mariana,  who  details  tliose 
acts  of  rigor,  is  thus  easily  explained.  Again,  when  Philip  II.,  about 
sixty  years  later,  re-established  the  tribunal  with  renewed  severity,  we 
may  look  for  many  abuses.  But  these  two  periods  of  excitement  were, 
thank  heaven,  of  very  short  duration,  and  the  severities  then  resorted  to 
are  not  a  fair  criterion,  whereby  to  judge  of  the  general  character  of  the 
Inquisition.  At  other  times,  many  of  its  rigorous  laws  were  often,  like 
some  of  the  grotesque  forms  of  jurisprudence  adopted  by  the  Venitian 
republic,  a  mere  dead  letter,  retained  on  the  statute  book,  in  terrorem, 

1  Liinborch,  Uooki,  ch.  27.  2  Ibid,  B.  i,  ch.  30. 

3  I'liey  also  declare  that  “  no  decree  (of  the  Inquisition)  could  be  published  without  the  conseat 
of  the  king.”  (Report  Cortes  in  1812). 

4  ”  Elle  fat  d’abord  plu.s  politique  que  religieuse.  et  destiuee  a  maiutcnir  I’ordre  plutot  qu’  a 
defendre  lafoi.”  Cours  d’histoire  moderue.  I'aris.  vol.  5,  Lect.  11. 


Prescott’s  view. 


227 


.  1 

That  the  abuses  of  the  Inquisition  have  been  greatly  exaggerated,  we 
prove  by  the  express  words  of  that  arch-enemy  of  the  tribunal,  V oltaire,! 
whose  testimony  Mr.  Prescott  cites  with  so  much  complacency,  to  prove 
that  the  wicked  measures  of  princes  have  generally  originated  in  the  evil 
counsels  of  their  confessors.^  We  prove  it  by  another  unexceptionable 
witness,  Mons.  Bourgoing,  sent  by  the  French  republic  in  1789,  as 
minister  plenipotentiary  to  Spain.  He  was  violently  opposed  to  the  Inquisi¬ 
tion,  and  yet  he  says  I  will  acknowledge,  in  order  to  give  homage  to 
truth,  that  the  Inquisition  might  be  cited  in  our  days,  as  a  model  of  equity.” 
This  avowal,  however  unpalatable  to  himself,  and  to  his  employers,  was 
wrung  from  him  only  by  the  stern  evidence  of  truth.  Our  third  witness 
is  Philip  Limborch,  whose  character  we  have  given  above.  Out  of  a  very 
long  list  of  criminals  condemned  by  the  Spanish  Inquisition,  during  a 
very  long  period,  he  admits  that  only  fifteen  men  and  four  women  were 
executed,  and  most  of  these  for  treason,  witchcraft,  sacrilege,  or  other 
crimes  than  heresy.'*  From  this  fact  we  draw  two  inferences  :  first,  that 
the  rigid  laws  of  the  Inquisition  were  very  feebly  executed ;  and  secondly, 
that  a  very  small  proportion  of  the  criminals  were  tried  for  heresy.  The 
Roman  Pontiff,  Clement  X.,  in  a  bull  published  in  1672,  enumerates  the 
offences  for  which  persons  might  be  proceeded  against  by  the  Inquisition, 
and  it  is  remarkable,  that  out  of  thirteen  different  classes  of  crimes  only 
one  is  heresy.®  If  our  readers  be  inclined  to  smile  at  the  prominent  place 
assigned  to  witchcraft,  sorcery,  &c,,  by  the  Pontiff,  we  ask  them  only  to 
remember  the  history  of  the  Salem  witchcraft. 

Of  the  two  courts  of  the  Inquisition,  the  civil  and  the  ecclesiastical,  the 
latter  was  in  fact  strictly  a  court  of  equity.  The  motto  on  its  banner, 
“  Mercy  and  Justice,”  was  indicative  of  its  character.  Mercy”  was  first 
offered  to  the  culprit,  and  if  he  would  not  accept  it,  he  was  delivered  over 
to  the  ”  Justice”  of  the  civil  court ;  but  even  then,  with  great  reluctance, 
and  always  with  a  recommendation  to  “  Mercy.”®  Before  the  accused  was 
arrested  at  all  by  the  Inquisition,  it  was  necessary  to  have  the  sworn 
evidence  of  three  difierent  witnesses,  each  of  whom  was  required  to  swear 
that  he  was  actuated  by  no  malice,  and  that  he  did  notact  in  collusion  with 
any  other  person.^  And  both  the  accusers,  and  the  officers  of  the  Inqui- 

1  IliB  words  as  given  in  the  French  “Diet,  des  Sciences,”  are  remarkable.  “  Sans  doute,  qii’on  a 
imputb  a  un  tribunal  si  justement  deteste,  des  exces  d’horreurs  qu’il  n  a  pas  tonjours  commis:  mais 
e’est  etre  mal  adroit,  que  de  s’elever  centre  I'luquisition  par  des  faits  douteux,  et  plus  encore,  de 
chercher  dansle  mensonge  de  quoi  la  rendre  odieuse.” — “  Without  doubt  writers  have  imputed  to  a 
tribunal  so  justly  detested  horrible  excesses  which  it  has  not  alway;3  committed  ;  but  it  is  very  inju¬ 
dicious  to  decry  the  Inquisition  by  doubtful  facts ;  and  still  more  so  to  seek  to  render  it  odious  by 
falsehood  ”  And  yet  this  is  precisely  what  all  the  enemies  of  the  Inquisition  have  done,  and  none 
more  so  than  Voltaire! 

2  Vol.  i,  ch.  6,  p.  246. 

3  “  Picture  of  Spain,”  reviewed  by  the  French  “  Journal  des  Debats,”  of  September  17,  1805.  See 
La  Cordaire's  Apology,  &c.  p.  117. 

4  See  Fletcher’s  notes  to  De  Maistre’s  first  letter. 

6  Bullarium  Rom.  T.  vii,  p.  185. 

6  Some  authors  think,  without  any  reason,  that  this  was  a  mere  form.  Jurieu,  the  famous  French 
Calvinist,  in  his  “  History  of  the  Papacy,”  Tom.  ii,  ch.  6,  admits  the  fact. 

7  Simancas,  Institutiones  Catholicee.  Tit.  xliv.  p.  £30,  Edit,  Romse,  1575,  4to.  This  work  had  great 


22S 


THE  SPANISH  INQUISITION. 

* 

sition  were  subject  to  excommunication,  if  tliey  were  guided  by  malice,  or 
any  other  unwortliy  motive*.  It  was  only  after  the  deposition  of  tlie  third 
witness,  that  the  accused  was  summoned,  when  if  he  disproved  the  charges,  • 
he  was  released.  If  he  failed  to  do  so,  he  was  still  released,  if  he  declared 
his  repentance.  If,  after  being  released,  he  was  again  arraigned  in  the 
same  manner  as  at  first,  and  was  convicted  a  second  time,  he  was  again 
pardoned  on  repentance.^  It  was  only  on  the  third  conviction,  by  three 
different  sets  of  witnesses,  each  consisting  of  tliree,  that  he  was  finally 
delivered  over  to  the  civil  court,  to  be  judged  for  the  offense.^ 

The  chief  motive  for  secrecy  in  the  proceedings  of  the  tribunal,  was  a 
wish  that  the  civU^  court  might  gain  no  knowledge  of  the  facts,  until  the 
ecclesiastical  court  had  exhausted  every  expedient  for  reclaiming  the  delin¬ 
quent.  And  so  far  was  this  secrecy  carried,  that  there  is  no  evidence  to 
prove  that,  when  the  criminal  was  handed  over  to  the  secular  court,  the 
evidence  elicited  before  the  ecclesiastical  tribunal  was  even  so  much  as 
communicated,  to  his  prejudice.  A  trial  altogether  new  seems  then  to  have 
commenced  before  the  civil  court,  and  it  was  only  at  this  stage  of  the 
prosecution,  that  tlie  cruel  practice  of  torturing  the  accused  was  resorted 
to.  Ecclesiastics  were  not  concerned  in  the  infliction  of  punishment :  it 
was  contrary  to  the  spirit  of  their  order,  and  to  the  express  laws  of  the 
Inquisition  itself.'*  So  that  Mr.  Prescott’s  frightful  picture  of  the  clergy 
applying  the  torture  to  their  victims  is,  at  best,  but  a  fancy  sketch.® 

The  practice  of  torturing  the  accused,  in  certain  cases,  was  then  almost 
universal  in  the  jurisprudence  of  all  nations.  It  was  a  part  of  the  civil  law, 
was  embodied  in  the  Theodosian  and  Justinian  codes,  and  had  the  sanction 
of  Ulpian,  and  other  distinguished  expounders  of  these  codes.  It  had 
been  borrowed  from  the  old  Roman  jurisprudence.  The  Church  did  much 

authority  amonj'  the  early  Inquisitors.  The  testimony  of  the  several  witnesses  was  carefully  noted 
down,  and  diligently  sifted,  and  if  on  being  again  called,  as  they  often  were  in  the  progress  of  the 
examination,  they  did  not  confirm  the  previous  statement  in  every  particular,  their  testimony  was  set 
at  naught.  Nor  was  the  previous  record  of  their  testimony  again  read  to  them,  but  they  were  left 
entirely  to  their  memory.  If,  under  this  rigid  scrutiny,  they  were  detected  in  equivocation,  self 
contradiction  or  perjury,  they  were  liable  to  imprisonment,  and  to  other  severe  penalties.  See  Siman- 
cas,  p.  o33. 

1  Uenedict  X.,  in  a  special  bull,  renewed  these  censures,  and  reserved  the  absolution  from  them  to 
the  Holy  See. 

2  Even  P.  Limborch,  cited  by  Fleury,  admits  that  the  criminal  was  twice  pardoned,  by  the  ecclesi¬ 
astical  court,  on  his  repentance. 

3  Some  of  the  courts  required  only  two,  but  the  more  general  practice  demanded  three  unexception¬ 
able  witnesses,  for  each  conviction.  True,  witnes.ses  of  suspicious  character  were  sometimes  allowed  to 
testify,  but  their  testimony  was  received  only  for  what  it  was  worth; — ••qualem  qualem  probationem,'') 
as  Simancas  says.  It  might  afford  conjectural  evidence,  and  might  aid  iu  eliciting  something  more 
conclusive;  but  of  itself,  it  never  could  cause  the  conviction  of  the  accused.  ( Simancas,  Tit.  li,p.  419.) 

In  fact,  to  condemn  the  accused,  the  clearest  evidence,  and  the  mo.st  unexceptionable  testimony,  were 
always  required;  probationes  luce  clariores  requiriintur  (Simanca.s,  Ibid  p  418  ) 

4  The  maxim,  Ecclesia  abhorret  a  sanguine,  The  Church  abhors  bloodshed. — i.s  a  standing  principle 
of  tlie  canon  law,  by  which  the  clergy  were  specially  bound  8o  far  was  this  maxim  carried  that 
clergymen  were  forbidden  to  practise  surgery,  or  even  to  bleed  a  pa  lent.  And  yet,  in  the  fa«e  of  this 
evidence,  the  Catholic  clergy  must  still  be  represented  as  thirsting  f  r  blood  I 

5  In  fact,  he  confounds  the  proceedings  of  the  two  courts  throughout,  barely  remarking  in  a  note 
on  page  2115,  that  Ferdin.and  had  established  a  supreme  council  to  supervise  the  proceedings  of  the 
subordinate  tribunals.  Why  this  important  omission^ 


Prescott’s  view. 


229 


to  mitigate  this  and  many  otlier  odious  features  of  the  civil  law,  and  many 
distinguished  men,  such  as  Ludovicus  Vives,  condemned  the  whole  practice 
as  cruel  and  unjust/  Tortures  were  employed  by  the  civil  courts  of  the 
Inquisition,  only  in  extreme  cases,  and  then  more  to  prompt  the  repentance, 
than  to  bring  about  the  condemnation  of  the  accused.^  The  confession 
elicited  under  torture  could  not  be  used  against  the  accused,  unless  he 
voluntarily  confirmed  it  three  days  afterwards,  according  to  the  usage  of 
the  Spanish  courts.’  If  he  would  not  confess,  he  was  generally  acquitted.'* 
The  application  of  the  torture  was  restricted  within  very  narrow  limits,  and 
all  abuses  in  inflicting  it  were  severely  condemned,®  and  they  subjected  the 
officers, thus  transcending  their  powers,  to  the  obligaiion  in  the  forum  of 
conscience,  as  well  as  in  that  of  the  public  courts,  of  repairing  all  injury 
done  to  those  thus  tortured.® 

In  one  word,  the  ecclesiastical  court  of  the  Inquisition  was  but  prepara¬ 
tory.  The  final  decision  of  the  case  always  took  place  before  the  civil 
court,  which  alone  inflicted  the  punishments  ordained  by  the  Spanish  laws. 
The  former  court  had  only  to  decide,  whether  there  was  sufficient  reason  to 
have  the  accused  indicted  before  the  latter.  It  performed  very  much  the 
same  office  as  our  modern  grand  juries,  with  these  important  diflferences, 
that  it  took  cognizance  only  of  a  certain  class  of  offenses  connected  with 
religion,  pardoned  twice  whenever  the  criminal  gave  satisfactory  signs  of 
repentance,  and  never  -presented  but  when  there  was  no  hope,  of  reforming 
the  oflender.  Where  will  you  find  any  civil  court  thus  lenient  V  It  is  a 
thing  unheard  of  in  modern  judicial  proceedings  ;  and  yet  the  Inquisition 
is  to  be  held  up  to  scorn  as  the  most  cruel  of  all  tribunals!  Count  Poll- 
nitz,  in  his  very  interesting  memoirs,®  is  astonished  at  the  ideas  Protestants 
entertain  on  a  subject  about  which  they  know  so  little.  “For  my  part,  I 
own  to  you  I  cannot  imagine  in  what  the  barbarity  consists,  which  you 
Protestants  attribute  to  the  Inquisition.  On  the  contrary  it  is,  in  my 
opinion,  the  mildest  and  most  lenient  tribunal  that  exists.”  And  he  assigns 
the  same  reason  that  we  do  above,  appeals  to  his  own  observation  in  Catholic 
countries,  and  hints  at  the  opposite  spirit  of  the  Calvinistic  consistory  of 
Geneva.  This  was  in  fact  an  Inquisition  which  never  forgave;  and  the 
English  court  of  high  commission  prosecuted  the  inoft’ensiv^e  Catholic  with 
a  rigor  that  never  relented,  no  matter  how  much  the  victim  cried  out  for 
mercy  !  Even  Mr.  Prescott  allows  that  Elizabeth’s  Inquisition  equalled  in 
severity  that  established  by  Ferdinand  and  Isabella®.  That  fact  is,  the 

1  Simaiicas,  Tit.  Ixv.  p.  495,  et.  seq  2  Ibid,  Til.  Ixv.  p.  496.  3  Ibid,  p.  509. 

4  Ibid,  p.  610.  5  Ibid,  p.  497. 

6  For  an  account  of  the  instrunienfs  of  torture  employed  again.st  the  Catholics  of  England  under 
Elizabeth  and  her  successors,  for  more  than  oue  hundred  \ears,  see  I.ingard's  England— Elizabeth, 
Butler's  Book  of  the  Catholic  Church.  Cobbett's  Letters,  &c.  England  was  the  last  country  in 
Europe  to  abolish  the  barbarous  custom  of  burning  at  the  stake,  an  instance  of  which  ©ccurred  as 
late  as  the  ninth  year  of  George  II.  And  yet  Englishmen  dare  talk  of  the  cruelties  of  the  Spanish 
Inquisition  I 

7  So  equitable  was  the  ancient  Inquisition,  that  the  Order  of  the  Templar.*,  in  the  beginning  of  the 
fourteenth  century,  sought  to  be  judged  by  it  in  preference  to  any  other  court. 

8  l  olliiitz’s  “  Memoirs,'’  volume  iii,  quoted  iu  Fletcher’s  notes  to  De  Maistre. 

8  Prescott,  vol.  iii,  p.  202. 

y 


230 


THE  SPANISH  INQUISITION. 


former  far  outstripped  the  latter  in  every  respect ;  and  the  English  are  the 
last  people  under  the  sun  who  should  talk  about  the  Spanish  Inquisition.* 
And  yet  they  precisely  have  raised  the  greatest  clamor  on  the  subject. 

It  is  not  true  that  counsel  was  not  allowed  to  the  party  accused  ;  ^  it  is 
not  true  that  the  articles  of  accusation  were  not  shown  to  him  it  is  not 
true  that  he  had  not  proper  means  of  defence  allowed  him.  Finally, 
though  the  autos  da  fe  were  bad  enough,  yet  the  picture  of  them  which 
represents  the  clergy  assisting  in  order  to  enjoy  the  agony  of  the  victims, 
is  as  unjust  as  it  is  fanciful.  They  attempted  to  soothe,  not  to  aggravate 
the  sufferings  of  the  condemned,  as  ministers  of  all  denominations  at  the 
present  day  accompany  the  culprit  to  the  scaffold.  These  are  the 
principal  erroneous  charges  against  the  Spanish  Inquisition,  many  of  which 
Mr.  Prescott  has  revived.  When  presenting  a  sketch  of  the  form  of  trial 
by  the  Inquisition,  why  did  he  make  so  many  important  omissions? 
Why  present  even  the  few  facts  which  he  does  give,  with  a  coloring 
which  indicates  a  prejudice  more  worthy  of  the  fierce  religious  acrimony 
of  the  sixteenth  century,  than  of  the  refinement  and  goodly  feeling  of 
the  present  day  ? 

III.  But  the  most  mischievous  part  of  Mr.  PrescotPs  account  of  the 
Spanish  Inquisition  is  that,  in  which  he  deliberately  charges  on  the 
Catholic  Church,  not  only  the  institution  itself,  but  even  its  cruelties  and 
abuses.  Nothing  could  be  more  unjust.  The  Inquisition  is  connected 
with  no  doctrine  of  the  Catholic  Church,  nor  is  it  even  a  part  of  her 
discipline.  It  was  never  established  in  any  country  without  the  concur¬ 
rence  of  its  temporal  rulers.  In  Spairt  the  people  and  the  Cortes  demanded 
its  establishment  from  the  king,  as  the  only  remedy  to  the  desperate 
political  evils  of  the  country.'*  Ferdinand  and  Isabella,  according  to 
Limborch,*  “earnestly  solicited  the  Roman  Pontiff,”  to  allow  them  to 
name  inquisitors  for  their  dominions.  It  is  doubtful  whether  the  Pontiff, 
Sixtus  IV.,  could  have  effectually  resisted  an  appeal  made  with  so  much 
earnestness,  and  involving  a  matter  so  intimately  interwoven  with  the 
welfare  of  Spain.  He  heard  the  petition,  and  issued  the  bulls  demanded, 
in  1478  ;  but,  on  the  appeal  of  the  Jews  against  the  excessive  severity  of 
the  inquisitors,  he  issued  another  bull  in  1481,  in  which  “he  rebuked 
their  intemperate  zeal,  and  even  threatened  them  with  deprivation.”®  A 
little  later.  Pope  Leo  X.  received  the  petition  of  the  Arragonese,  stating 
their  grievances  under  the  operation  of  the  Inquisition,  and  granted  the 
prayer  thereof  by  a  special  bull,  by  wiiich  he  greatly  modified  the  form 

1  See  Linj'iird’s  England,  Elizabeth  ;  Butler’s  “  Book  of  the  Catholic  Church;”  Cobbett’s  Letters, 
and  De  Maistre’s  fifth  end  sixth  Letters,  for  proofs  on  this  subject. 

2  Simancas,  Tit.  xliv.  p.  832,  from  who.se  testimony  it  appears  that,  in  the  Spani.sh  courts,  counsel 
was  not  0||ly  allowed,  but  that  he  had  unreserved  conimunicatiou  with  the  accused  for  thive  day.s, 
in  order,  with  his  aid.  to  prepare  suittible  un.swers  to  the  different  charges  of  the  indictment. 

S  This  is  admitted  by  the  writer  of  a  most  virulent  article  in  the  Edinburgh  Encyclopedia, 
Articie,  I  nqui.'itiort.  Mr.  Prescott  adiiiits  it  too,  bur,  with  a  qualification  which  de.stroys  the  force  of 
the  admi.s.'ion  ;  vol,  i,  p.  257.  See  Simancas,  Tit.  xliv.  p.  332,  where  this  is  asserted  without  any 
qualification. 

4  See  Report  of  Cortes.  6  Limborch,  b.  i,  ch.  24.  6  Prescott,  vol.  i,  p.  254. 


Prescott’s  view. 


231 


of  the  whole  tribunal,  and  restrained  the  powers  of  the  inquisitors  ;  but  to 
show  how  powerless  the  Pope  was  in  this  matter,  the  Emperor  Charles  V. 
annulled  the  papal  decree  by  his  royal  authority !  *  But  the  Popes 
succeeded  better  in  regard  to  Naples,  over  which  they  had  more  political 
influence  ;  they  steadily  opposed  the  introduction  of  the  Inquisition  into 
that  kingdom,  and  after  a  long  struggle  with  the  Spanish  monarclis* 
they  gained  the  victory.^  It  was  Charles  V.,  and  not  the  Pope,  w'hq 
established  the  Inquisition  in  Sicily.^  It  was  the  Senate  of  Venice,  and 
not  the  Pope,  that  established  the  Inquisition  in  this  republic/  ; 

The  general  policy  of  the  Popes  deprecated  severity  towards  sinners  and 
those  who  had  wandered  from  the  true  faith.  The  Bullarium  Romanum 
is  full  of  proofs  of  this  assertion.  Our  limits  will  allow  but  a  few  of  the 
most  prominent  facts.  As  early  as  1268,  we  find  Pope  Clement  IV. 
disapproving  of  the  severe  laws  against  blasphemy  enacted  by  the  sainted 
French  monarch,  Louis  IX.  Various  Popes  sought  to  protect  the  Jews 
from  the  insults  and  injuries  to  which  they  were  liable  from  the  populace, 
in  various  countries  in  Europe.  Thus  Honorius  III.,  in  1217,*published 
a  bull  in  which  he  forbade,  under  the  severest  ecclesiastical  penalties,  any 
one  to  force  them  to  be  baptized  against  their  will,  or  to  oiler  any  other 
indignity  to  their  persons,  or  injury  to  their  property.®  The  Bull  of 
'Martin  V.,  published  in  1425,^  in  which  they  were  declared  liable  to 
various  penalties,  if  they  persevered  in  buying  and  selling  Christians,  as 
they  were  accused  of  having  done,  did  not,  however,  revoke  the  acts  of 
his  predecessors  in  favor  of  that  obdurate  race.  As  a  proof  of  the 
elemency  of  the  Roman  Pontiffs  towards  the  Jewish  people,  there  is  a 
proverb  current  among  the  latter  to  this  day,  that  “  Rome  is  the  paradise 
of  the  Jews.” 

In  regard  to  the  Inquisition  in  Portugal,  the  Popes  maintained  a  long- 
struggle  with  the  Portuguese  monarchs  before  they  would  at  all  consent 
to  its  establishment,  and  then  they  did  so  with  regret,  according  to  the 
testimony  of  Antonio  Sousa,  cited  by  Limborch.®  And  afier  it  had  been 
established,  they  did  everything  in  their  power  to  mitigate  its  severity. 
Thus  we  find  Clement  X.,  in  1674-5,  in  separate  bulls,®  receiving* appeals 
from  the  decisions  of  the  Portuguese  tribunals,  and  thieatening  deprivation 
and  other  penalties  to  the  inquisitors,  if  they  persisted.  When  the  latter 
proved  disobedient  to  the  papal  mandate,  we  find  Innocent  XI.,  the 
successor  of  Clement  X.,  enforcing  the  decree  of  his  predecessor  against 
them  (A.  D.  1679),  and  declaring  their  acts  null  and  void.^°  In  another 
bull  published  in  1681,“  the  same  Pontiff  corrects  many  abuses  which 
had  crept  into  the  Inquisition  of  Portugal,  and.^makes  many  salutai-y 

1  Report  of  Cortes.  *  2  Liuiborch,  b.  i,  ch.  26  3  Ibid.  b.  i,  cb.  27.  , 

4  See  La(!ordaire,  sup.  cit.  p.  125  5  Bulbirium  Rom.  tom  iii,  p.  191. 

6  Those  who  wish  ro  see  more  on  this  interesting  subject  are  referred  to  Guerra,  Pouiilici.irum. 
Constitution um  Epitome,  toI.  i.  p.  191,  et  seq.,  Edit.  Venitiis.  1772,  4  vols  folio. 

.  7  Rnllarium  Rom.  tom.  iii,  p  453.  8  B.  i,  ch.  25. 

9  Bull.  Rom.  tom.  vii,  pp.  266,  271,  and  312. 

10  ibid.  tom.  riii,  p.  96. 


11  Ibid.  p.  230i 


232 


THE  SPANISH  INQUISITION. 


enactments  for  the  guidance  of  the  inquisitors.  Among  these,  one  gives 
to  the  accused  the  privilege  of  selecting  other  counsel,  if  that  assigned  by 
the  Inquisitorial  court  be  not  agreeable  to  him,  and  enjoins  that  the  new 
counsel  have  free  access  to  his  client;  and  another  directs  that  the 
prisoners  be  treated  with  greater  mildness,  that  the  prisons  be  less  dark, 
and  the  confinement  less  rigid.  More  evidence  might  be  adduced  to 
prove  what  we  have  above  asserted,  but  we  must  stop  here.* 

In  the  face  of  all  these  facts,  is  it  not  very  unjust,  to  charge  the  Popes, 
or  the  Catholic  Church,  with  the  abuses  of  the  Inquisition  ?  It  is  certain 
that  they  did  everything  in  their  power  to  restrain  the  excesses  of  that 
tribunal;  and  if  they  frequently  failed,  it  was  the  fault  of  temporal  princes 
and  of  the  times,  not  of  the  Church.  One  fact  in  regard  to  the  Spanish 
Inquisition,  would  alone  suffice  to  show  how  utterly  unable  the  Pope,  and 
even  a  genei-al  council  of  the  Catholic  Church  was  to  reverse  one  of 
its  decisions.  While  the  council  of  Trent  was  in  session,  Bartholomew 
Caranza,  archbishop  of  Toledo,  was  arrested  by  the  Inquisition  and 
confined  in  prison  on  a  charge  of  heresy.  The  interference  of  Pius  IV„ 
and  the  protest  of  the  council  of  Trent,  were  unavailing ;  the  Inquisition 
was  inflexible,  and  the  archbishop  was  released  only  after  eight  years,  by 
order  of  Philip  II.^  If  this  fact  does  not  prove  that  the  Church  had  no 
control  over  the  Spanish  Inquisition,  we  are  at  a  loss  to  know  what  could 
prove  this  proposition. 

Mr.  Prescott^  attributes  perfidy  and  interested  motives  to  the  Roman 
Pontiff’s  in  their  relations  towai’ds  the  Spanish  Inquisition.  No  assertion 
could  be  more  groundless.  The  Popes  never  derived  any  emolument  from 
the  inquisitorial  tribunals;  it  was  one  of  the  standing  rules  of  the 
“Supreme  Roman  Inquisition,”  established  by  a  bull  of  Paul  III.,  in 
1542,'*  that  its  decisions  should  be  given  gratis  in  every  case.  In  estab¬ 
lishing  this  supreme  court,  the  Pontiff  revoked  all  inquisitorial  powers,  and 
laid  down  such  rules  as  were  well  calculated  to  prevent  every  abuse. 
And  though  three  hundred  years  have  elapsed  since  the  establishment  of 
this  court,  it  would  be  difficult  to  point  to  an  instance  in  which  it  ever 
pronounced  sentence  of  capital  punishment.®  The  only  thing  for  which  it 
has  ever  been  blamed,  is  its  very  delicate  tieatment  of  the  great  Galileo, 
when  a  clamor  was  raised  against  him  by  jealous  rivals  whom  he  had 
'eclipsed.®  Such  was  the  conduct  of  the  Popes  at  home,  where  they  had 
ith  ^  power  to  act  according  to  their  own  judgment,  untrammelled  by  the 
■p''  litical  intrigues  of  princes. 

The  comparatively  weak  and  imbecile  condition  of  Spain  for  the  last 
century,  has  been  ascribed  to  the  Inquisition.  If  such  be  the  case,  how 

I  For  more  on  this  sul  jict.  see  Guerra,  p.  175,  ft  seq.  This  author  has,  however,  omitted  to  notice 
sav-’r.'il  papal  bulls  re^ardiii):  t  lie  Inqui.sition. 

i  See  La  Cordaire.  .Xpolugy,  etc.  pp.  133-4. 

Z  Vol,  i.  pp  ‘248  and  ‘267 

4  Bull  Koin.  tom  iv.  p.  ‘211. 

5  See  IkTgier’s  Diet  de  Theologie.  Art  Inquisition,  where  he  nia'ice-s  this  same  as.sertion  even  more 
.ptroiigly,  and  challenges  anv  one  to  produce  a  proof  to  the  contr.iry. 

6  See  La  Cordaire.  Apology,  p  134,  and  Dublin  Review  for  July,  1833 


Prescott’s  view. 


233 


are  we  to  explain  the  fact,  that  for  two  hundred  years  after  its  establish¬ 
ment,  Spain  was  the  first  country  in  Europe?  The  decline  of  Spain  may 
be  traced,  with  greater  probability,  to  other  causes.  The  emigration  of  her 
people  to  America,  the  influx  of  wealth  from  her  colonies,  and  the  conse¬ 
quent  decline  of  industry  among  her  population,  contributed,  with  various 
other  well  known  causes,  to  low^er  her  in  the  scale  of  European  nations. 
We  often  hear  of  the  number  of  victims  who  were  immolated  by  her 
Inquisition,  but  we  are  not  told  of  the  far  greater  number  who  fell  in  the 
various  religious  wars  by  which  Germany,  France,  and  England  were 
convulsed,  while  Spain  was  secured  by  tliis  institution  from  the  acrimo¬ 
nious  controversy  in  which  those  wars  originated  !’  Where  the  Spanish 
Inquisition  immolated  one  victim,  the  Moloch  of  religious  dissension  has 
immolated  whole  hecatombs ! 

We  cannot  think  that  Mr.  Prescott  would  have  hazarded  many  of  the 
aspersions  on  the  Catholic  Church  with  which  his  book  is  filled,  had  he 
been  fully  aware  of  the  facts  above  stated.  He  might  have  learned  a 
lesson  of  moderation  in  this  respect  from  his  illustrious  countrymen, 
Bancroft  and  Irving,  especially  as  the  Inquisition,  the  cause  of  his 
inclignation,  no  longer  exists.  We  regret  still  more  the  faults  of  his  book, 
because  it  will  descend  to  posterity  as  a  standard  work  of  American 
literature*  of  which  his  country  may  justly  be  proud.  It  is  time  for. all 
of  us  to  learn  the  lesson  of  forbearance  taught  by  the  Gospel,  and  confirmed 
by  the  bitter  experience  of  the  past.  Have  the  Protestant  sects  been 
immaculate  on  the  score  of  religious  persecution,  in  regard  to  the  mother 
Church,  or  even  in  regard  to  each  other?  If  they  have,  then  may  they 
rail  at  the  Spanish  Inquisition !  But  if  they  have  some  misgivings  on  the 
subject,  then  would  we  say  to  them  in  the  language  of  our  blessed  Lord 
addressed  to  the  Scribes  and  Pharisees,  who  sought  the  death  of  the 
woman  taken  in  adultery:  “He  that  is  without  sin  among  you,  let  him 
first  cast  a  stone.’* 

1  See  Muzzarelli,  *•  II  boon  uso  della  loglca,”  eta  vol.  t,  p.  108,  for  a  beautiful  passage  ou  this 
subject. 


Y2 


XII.  THE  REFORMATION  IN  SWITZERLAND.— BER. 

NESE  INTRIGUES.* 


The  late  religious  war  in  Switzerland  —  Policy  of  France  and  Austria  —  Intrigues  of  England  — 
Character  of  the  War  —  Whence  the  liberties  of  Switzerland — Analogy  between  the  late  struggle, 
and  that  preceding  the  Reformation  —  Berne  the  centre  of  operations  —  M.  de  Haller’s  point  of 
view  — His  character  as  an  historian  —  His  authorities  —  Wavering  of  Berne  —  Tortuous  policy  — 
How  she  embraced  the  Reform  —  The  htar  and  the  pears  —  Treacherous  perjury  of  Bern^e  — 
Zuingliati  Council  —  Its  decrees  —  Religious  liberty  crushed  —  Riot  and  sacrilege — Proceedingi 
of  Bernese  commissioners  —  Downright  tyranny  —  The  minister  Farel  —  His  Jiery  zeal  —  An 
appalling  picture  —  A  parallel  —  Priests  hunted  down  —  Character  of  the  ministers  —  Avowal  of 
Capito  —  The  glorious  privilege  of  private  judgment  —  How  consistent !  —  Persecution  of  brother 
Protestants  —  Drowning  the  Anabaptists  —  Reformation  in  Geneva  —  Rapid  summary  of  horrors  — 
The  Bernese  army  of  invasion  —  The  sword  and  the  Bible  —  Forbearance  of  Catholics  —  Affecting 
incident  at  Soleure  —  The  war  of  Cappell  —  Points  of  resemblance  —  An  armed  apostle  —  A  prophet 
quailing  before  danger  —  Battle  of  Cappell  —  Death  of  Zuingle  —  Triumph  of  Catholic  cantons  — 
Treaty  of  Peace. 

% 

The  exciting  occurrences  which  took  place  in  Switzerland  a  few  years 
ago,  caused  the  eyes  of  the  whole  civilized  world  to  be  directejl  to  that 
most  interesting  country.  All  Europe  stood  looking  on  with  the  most 
lively  interest,  while  those  scenes  were  enacting  ;  and  France  and  Austria, 
with  their  powerful  armies,  hovered  over  the  Swiss  frontiers,  ready  to 
interpose  in  case  of  necessity  ;  —  whether  to  stay  the  onward  progress  of 
anarchy  and  civil  war,  or  to  turn  the  course  which  events  might  take  to 
their  own  advantage. 

And  these  two  great  Catholic  powers,  after  witnessing  the  noble  heroism 
with  .which  the  Catholic  Swiss  at  first  successfully  repelled  the  army  of 
invaders,  which  came  to  assail  their  dearest  rights,  and  to  pollute  their 
very  firesides,  could  calmly  look  on  and  see  those  same  noble  heroes  finally 
succumb  to  overwhelming  numbers  !  Without  striking  a  blow,  or  even 
entering  a  serious  protest,  they  could  see  the  ancient  liberties  of  Switzer¬ 
land  crushed  in  the  dust,  and  its  brave  defenders  bowed  down  under  the 
yoke  of  a  most  degrading  slavery  !  The  vile  intrigues  of  England  gained 
for  her  the  diplomatic  victory  ;  and  the  Catholic  cabinets,  at  her  bidding, 
consented  ignobly  to  sacrifice  the  cause  of  right  and  justice  to  that  of  mere 
political  expediency.  The  spirit  of  chivalry  had  fled,  and  the  w^ak,  nobly 
struggling  for  their  altars  and  their  liberties,  were  permitted  to  be  over¬ 
whelmed  by  the  strong ;  might  thus  gaining  the  day  over  right. 

*  Histoire  de  la  revolution  religieuse,  ou  de  la  reforme  Protestante  dans  la  Suisse  Occi- 
dentale.  Pur  Charles  Louis  de  Haller,  ancien  membre  du  conseil  souverain,  et  du 
conseil  secret  de  Berne,  chevalier  do  I’ordre  royal  de  la  lejrion  d’honneur,  et  de  celui 
de  Charles  III.  d’Espagne,  Ac.  History  of  the  religious  revolution,  or  of  the  Protestant 
Reformation,  in  Western  Switzerland.  By  Charles  Louis  de  Haller,  former  member  of 
the  supreme  and  of  the  secret  councils  of  Berne,  Knight  of  the  royal  order  of  the 
legion  of  honor,  and  of  that  of  Charles  III.  of  Spain,  «5cc.  4th  edition.  Paris,  1839, 
1  vol.  12mo ,  pp.  430. 


I 


BERNESE  INTRIGUES. 


235 


It  is  admitted  on  all  hands,  that,  in  the  disturbances  to  which  we  allude, 
the  Protestants  were  the  aggressors,  and  that  the  Catholics  acted  only  on 
the  defensive.  Lucerne,  the  principal  Catholic  canton  of  the  confederacy, 
claimed  the  risfht  of  manafrins:  her  own  educational  concerns  without  the 
interference  of  her  neighbors  ;  this  right  was  clearly  guaranteed  to  her  by 
the  fundamental  articles  of  the  Swiss  confederation ;  and  she  resolved  to 
maintain  it  at  all  hazards.  If  the  Catholic  Lucerners  thought  proper  to 
entrust  the  education  of  their  children  to  the  Jesuits,  what  right  had  the 
Protestants  of  Argovia,  Berne,  and  Bale  Campagne  to  object?  What 
right  had  the  latter  to  say  to  the  former,  you  shall  not  employ  these 
teachers,  but  you  shall  employ  such  as  may  be  agreeable  to  our  taste  ? 
Yet  they  did  thus  wantonly  and  rudely  interfere  with  what  was  clearly 
not  their  business ;  but  they  received  a  lesson  which  may  serve  as  a 
warning  to  all  busy  meddlers  in  future. 

In  the  late  desperate  attempts  to  subvert  the  constitution,  and  to  crush 
the  very  independence  of  Lucerne  by  force,  this  brave  old  Catholic  canton, 
assisted  by  its  faithful  allies  of  Scliwytz,  Uri,  Zug,  and  Unterwald,  proved 
to  all  the  world  that  it  could  fight  as  well  as  pray  ;  and  that  Ca^diolicity, 
far  from  enervating,  had  strengthened  its  primitive  vigor  and  courage. 
The  old  Catholic  cantons  proved  themselves  worthy  descendants  of  those 
noble  patriots  who  had  fought  at  Morgarten,  under  the  victorious  banners 
of  Tell  and  Fiirst.  These  Catholic  heroes  had  laid  the  foundations  of 
Swiss  independence,  in  the  beginning  of  the  fourteenth  century  ;  and  with 
their  watch-word,  liberty,  they  had  ever  proved  terrible  to  their  foes,  and 
unconquerable  in  battle.  The  fierce  Gorgon  of  despotism  had  not  dared, 
for  centuries,  to  desecrate,  with  his  foul  footsteps,  the  soil  beneath  which 
rested  the  mortal  remains  of  those  soldiers  of  freedom  ;  nor  to  pollute,  with 
his  pestilent  breath,  that  pure  and  bracing  air  of  the  moiin tains,  which 
was  itself  the  rnost  appropriate  emblem  of  the  pure,  and  lofty,  and  untram¬ 
meled  patriotism,  cherished  as  their  own  heart’s  blood  by  the  brave, 
sturdy,  and  enthusiastic  Swiss  mountaineers. 

How  could  the  Protestant  reformation  hope  to  pervert  such  men  as 
these  ?  It  might  easily  gain  over  to  its  standard  the  comparatively  eii’emi-' 
nate,  and  the  far  more  worldly-minded  and  corrupt  inhabitants  of  the 
plains ;  it  could  never  proselytize  the  unsophisticated  children  of  the 
mountains.  These  prized  their  religion  as  dearly  as  they  did  their  ancestral 
gloiy ;  in  fact,  the  two  were  intimately  associated  together  in  their  minds,  as 
they  had  ever  been  in  the  heroic  period  of  their  history.  It  was  the  Catholic 
religion  which  had  inspired  the  ardent  patriotism,  stimulated  the  noble 
courage,  and  nerved  for  battle  the  brawny  arms  of  Tell  and  his  associates  ; 
it  was  the  Catholic  religion  which  had  crowned  the  victors  with  laurel, 
had  celebrated  the  triumphal  disenthralment  of  the  country  by  its  splendid 
services  of  thanksgiving,  and  had  erected  the  public  monuments  which  com- 
memoiated  the  victory.  Bending  reverently  before  the  altar  of  his  God, 
and  falling  prostrate  before  the  Lamb  oSered  up  thereon,  the  Swiss  hero 
had  prayed  with  confidence  for  victory  ;  and  he  had  there,  too,  returned 


236  THE  REFORMATION  IN  SWITZERLAND. 


liis  fervid  thanks  to  God,  when  victory  had  been  finally  won  by  his  good 
sword  blessed  by  heaven. 

No  wonder,  then,  that  Lucerne  and  the  other  Catholic  cantons  could  not 
brook  to  be  dictated  to  by  their  neighbors,  in  matters  involving  the  free 
exercise  of  their  religion.  No  wonder  that  they  were  willing  to  shed  the 
last  drop  of  their  blood,  rather  than  have  the  bright  jewel  of  faith  torn  from 
their  bosoms,  or  than  wear,  riveted  upon  their  necks,  the  galling  yoke  of 
a  religious  despotism. 

The  late  war  in  Switzerland  was  a  religious  war,  in  which  one  party 
was  struggling  for  its  religious  independence,  and  the  other,  for  the 
establishment  of  a  religious  ascendency.  That  such  a  struggle  should 
have  happened  a  hundred  years  back,  would  create  little  or  no  surprise  ,* 
but  that  it  should  have  occurred  in  our  own  day  ;  in  this  enlightened  and 
tolerant  nineteenth  century  ;  in  this  enlightened  age  of  dollars  and  cents, 
in  which  almost  every  thing  else  is  valued  more  highly  than  religion  ;  — 
is  indeed  not  a  little  astonishing.  It  might  even  seem  that  this  age  was 
awaking  from  its  lethargic  stupor  of  inditfeience,  and  was  putting  on  once 
more  somethinof  of  that  religious  zeal  and  enthusiasm  which  whilom 
animated  the  crusaders.  But  such  was  really  not  the  case.  The  awakening 
was  only  local,  partial,  and  fitful  ;  it  was  but  a  momentary  outburst  of  a 
religious  bigotry  as  blind  as  it  was  hateful,  on  the  one  side  ;  and  of  a  religious 
enthusiasm  for  self-defense,  both  deep  and  determined,  on  the  other.  It 
was  a  fitful  war  of  two  great  conflicting  elements  in  society  —  anarchy 
and  order.  Order  at  first  triumphed  ;  but  anarchy  finally  gained  the  day  ! 

It  would  be  but  a  very  imperfect  and  short-sighted  view  of  the  subject, 
to  consider  the  late  Swiss  disturbances  as  merely  isolated  events,  uncon¬ 
nected  with  the  past  history  of  Switzerland.  To  understand  them  aright, 
we  must  look  back  three  hundred  years,  to  the  period  when  the  great 
religious  revolution,  called  by  courtesy  the  reformation,  swept  over  that 
country,  scattering  broadcast  upon  its  once  peaceful  and  happy  soil  the 
prolific  seeds  of  dissensions,  and  divisions,  and  civil  wars.  There  is  no 
more  doubt  that  all  the  evils,  all  the  bitter  feuds,  all  the  rancorous  civil 
broils,  and  nearly  all  the  bloodslied  of  Switzerland  during  the  last  three 
centuries,  have  sprung  from  the  reformation,  than  there  is  of  this  other 
fact,  that  all  the  previous  liberty,  and  peace,  and  glory  of  the  country, 
had  sprung  from  the  great  political  revolution  effected  by  Catholics  in  the 
beginning  of  the  fourteenth  century.  These  two  great  revolutions  are  the 
starting  points  of  Swiss  glory  and  of  Swiss  disgrace. 

It  is  with  this  view  that  we  now  proceed  to  present  some  of  the  leading 
facts  in  the  early  history  of  the  Swiss  reformation ;  a  revolution,  as  we 
sincerely  believe,  pregnant  with  infinite  mischief  of  every  kind  to  the 
Swiss  confederation. 

Zurich  was  the  first  city  in  Switzerland  which  embraced  the  reformation ; 
or,  as  M.  de  Haller  expresses  it,  she  was  “the  mother  and  the  root  of  all 
religious  and  political  Protestantism  in  Switzerland.”  ‘  She  was  nearly 

1  Page  434. 


BERNESE  INTRIGUES. 


237 


eight  years  in  advance  of  Berne  in  the  race  of  reform ;  and  it  was  through 
her  influence  mainly  that  the  latter  at  length  consented  to  accept  the  new 
gospel.  But  once  Berne  had  embraced  it,  she  far  outstripped  her  preceptor 
in  religious  zeal  or  fanaticism;  and  she  took  the  lead  in  all  the  subsequent 
religioso-political  affairs  of  the  country.  Her  central  position,  her  rich  and 
extensive  territory,  her  untiring  industry,  and  her  adroit  and  unscrupulous 
diplomacy,  gave  her  the  ascendency  over  the  other  Protestant  cantons,  and 
made  her  the  leader  in  every  great  enterprise.  It  was  through  her  intrigues 
that  Geneva  was  induced  to  receive  the  new  doctrines ;  it  was  by  her 
triumphant  physical  power  that  the  reformation  was  thrust  down  the 
throats  of  the  good  Catholic  people  of  Vaud.  Bernese  preachers,  escorted 
by  Bernese  bailiffs  and  spies,  traversed  all  the  north-western  cantons, 
scattering  dissension  wherever,  they  went,  and  establishing  the  new  gospel, 
either  by  intrigue  or  by  force,  wherever  they  could.  Cautiously  and 
cunningly,  but  with  an  industry  Xhat  never  tired,  and  a  resolution  that 
never  faltered,  Berne  pursued  her  Machiavellian  policy;  until,  by  one 
means  or  another,  about  half  of  the  Swiss  confederation  was  torn  from 
Catholic  unity,  and  bound  at  the  same  time,  by  strong  political  ties,  to 
herself.  Thus  she  became  the  great  leader  of  the  Protestant,  as  Lucerne 
has  ever  been  that  of  the  Catholic  cantons  of  Switzerland. 

It  is  from  this  elevated  point  of  view,  that  M.  de  Haller  looks  down 
upon  the  history  of  the  Swiss  reformation.  Himself  a  Bernese,  and,  until 
he  became  a  Catholic,’  a  Bernese  counsellor  as  high  in  power  and  influence 
as  he  was  in  wisdom  and  talents,  he  was  eminently  qualified  to  write  a 
history  of  the  religious  revolution  in  Switzerland.  Candid  and  moderate 
by  nature,  of  an  enlarged  mind  and  comprehensive  genius,  his  scrupulous 
veracity  has  not  been  denied  even  by  his  strongest  opponents  ;  while  he 
certainly  had  every  opportunity  to  become  thoroughly  acquainted  with 
the  events  he  relates.  He  assures  us  in  his  preface,  that  his  history 
“  cannot  be  taxed  with  exaggeration,  for  it  has  been  faithfully  derived 
from  Historical  Fragments  of  the  city  of  Berne,  composed  by  a  Bernese 
ecclesiastic  (Protestant)  ;  from  the  History  of  the  Swiss,  by  Mallett,  a‘ 
Genevan  Protestant ;  from  that  of  Baron  d’Alt,  a  Catholic,  it  is  true,  but 
excessively  reserved  upon  all  that  might  displease  the  Bernese  ;  and  above 
all,  in  fine,  from  the  History  of  the  Reformation  ii>  Switzerland,  by  M. 
Ruchat,  a  zealous  Protestant  minister  and  professor  of  belles-lettres  at  the 
academy  of  Lausanne,  to  whom  all  the  archives  were  opened  for  the 
composition  of  his  work.”  ^ 

This  last  named  writer,  whom  he  quotes  continually,  was  a  most  violent 
partisan  of  the  Swiss  reformation ;  and  yet  even  he  was  compelled  to 
relate  a  large  portion  of  the  truth,  mixed  up,  as  usual,  with  much  adroit 
and  canting  misrepresentation.  Thus  he  asserts,  among  other  things, 
“that  the  Catholic  religion  is  idolatrous  and  superstitious,  and  that  it 
cannot  be  sustained  but  by  ignorance,  by  interest,  by  violence,  and  by 

1  For  having  become  a  Catiiolic,  he  was  expelled  from  the  council,  probably  in  order  ta  prove 
Protestant  love  of  liberty!  2  P.  ix. 


238  THE  REFORMATION  IN  SWITZERLAND.. 


fraud.”*  M.  de  Haller  meets  the  injurious  charge,  not  by  asserting,  but 
by  'proving,  from  undeniable  evidence,  that  the  Swiss  reformation  was 
established  precisely  by  these  identical  means,  and  that  it  could  not,  in 
fact,  have  been  established  otherwise.  He  says  : — 

“Protestants  of  good  faith  —  and  there  are  many  such  among  our 
separated  brethren  —  will  judge  for  themselves,  from  a  simple  exposition 
of  facts,  whether  it  was  not  rather  their  own  religion  which  was  introduced 
by  ignorance,  interest,  violence,  and  fraud  :  by  ignorance,  for  it  was  every 
where  the  ignorant  multitude  that  decided,  without  knowledge  of  the 
cause,  upon  questions  of  faith  and  discipline,  and  this  was  carried  so  far 
that  even  children  of  fourteen  years  were  called  to  these  popular  assemblies ; 
by  interest,  for  the  robbery  of  churches,  of  temples,  and  of  monasteries, 
was  the  first  act  of  the  reformation  ;  by  violence,  for  it  was  with  armed 
force  that  altars  were  overturned,  images  broken,  convents  pillaged,  and 
it  became  necessary  to  employ  fire  and  sword,  confiscation  and  exile,  in 
order  to  make  the  new  religion  prevail  over  the  ancient  belief ;  by  lying 
and  by  fraud,  for  Luther  and  Zuingle  formally  recommended  both  to 
their  followers  as  means  of  success,  and  their  counsel  has  been  followed 
with  fidelity  and  perseverance  even  unto  our  own  day.  We  will  now  pass 
on  to  the  facts  and  the  proof.”** 

We  defy  any  one  to  read  attentively  M.  de  Haller’s  work,  without 
admitting  that  he  has  triumphantly  proved  all  this,  and  even  more,  by 
facts  and  evidence  derived  mainly  from  Protestant  sources.  Our  limits 
will  not,  of  course,  allow  us  to  go  into  all  the  details  of  the  evidence  ;  yet 
we  hope  to  be  able  to  furnish  enough  to  convince  any  impartial  mind  that 
M.  de  Haller’s  position  is  entirely  sound  and  tenable.  But  first  we  must 
glance  rapidly  at  the  manner  in  which  the  reformation  was  first  introduced 
into  Berne  ;  which,  as  we  have  already  intimated,  subsequently  exercised 
so  strong  an  influence,  both  religious  and  political,  on  other  parts  of 
Switzerland. 

It  was  slowly  and  cautiously  that  Berne  embraced  the  new  doctrines. 
Long  did  she  resist  the  intrigues  of  the  Zurichers,  and  the  wily  arts  of 
their  new  apostle,  Ulrich  Zuingle.  This  man  understood  well  the 
character  of  the  Bernese  ;  their  wary  distrust  of  any  thing  new,  their 
deeply  seated  self-interest,  and  their  dogged  obstinacy  in  maintaining 
whatever  they  finally  settled  down  upon.  He  well  knew  all  this,  and  he 
acted  accordingly.  Writing  to  Berchtold  Haller,  the  first  herald  of  the 
new  gospel  at  Berne,  he  advised  moderation  and  caution  ;  “for,”  says  he, 
“  the  minds  of  the  Bernese  are  not  yet  ripe  for  the  new  gospel.”^  In  a 
letter  subsequently  addressed  to  Francis  Kolb,  he  uses  this  quaint  language, 
alluding  to  the  cantonal  type  of  Berne  —  the  hear : — 

“  My  dear  Francis  !  proceed  slowly,  and  not  too  rudely,  in  the  business  ; 
do  not  throw  to  the  hear  at  first  but  one  sour  pear  along  with  a  great 
many  sweet  ones,  afterwards  two,  then  three  ;  and  if  he  begin  to  swallow 
them,  throw  him  always  more  and  more,  sour  and  sweet,  pellmell. 


1  Quoted  by  de  Haller,  Pref.  x. 

2  Pref.  X.  and  xi.  lie  gives  us  in  a  note,  besides  some  curious  facts  about  Zuingle,  the  following 

passage  from  a  letter  of  Luther  to  Melancthon,  dated  August  30,  1530  :  “  When  we  will  have  nothing 
more  to  fear,  and  when  we  shall  bo  left  in  repose,  we  will  then  repair  all  our  present  lies,  our  frauds, 
and  our  acts  of  violence.'*'  3  Quoted  by  de  Ilaller  p.  18. 


f 


BERNESE  INTRIGUES. 


239 


Finally,  empty  the  sack  altogether ;  soft,  hard,  sweet,  sour,  and  crude  ; 
he  will  devour  them  all,  and  will  not  suffer  any  one  to  take  them  away 
from  him,  nor  to  drive  him  away.”  ‘ 

Zuingle  understood  his  men,  and  his  arts  succeeded  even  beyond  his 
most  sanguine  expectations.  Berne  vacillated  for  several  years  between 
truth  and  error  ;  her  policy  was  wavering  and  tortuous  ;  but  at  length 
she  threw  her  whole  influence  into  the  scale  of  the  reformation  ;  and  once 
she  had  taken  her  position,  she  maintained  it  with  her  characteristic 
obstinacy.’ 

Though  her  counsels  were  often  uncertain,  yet,  in  the  main,  she  had 
continued  faithful  to  the  old  religion  up  to  the  year  1527.  On  the  26th 
of  January,  1524,  we  find  her  delegates  uniting  with  those  of  the  twelve 
cantons  at  Lucerne  in  a  strong  decree,  unanimously  passed,  for  the 
maintenance  of  Catholicity.^  Shortly  afterwards,  she  listened  with  respect 
to  the  voice  of  the  three  Catholic  bishops  of  Constance,  Bale,  and  Lausanne, 
who  strongly  urged  the  cantons  to  remain  steadfast  in  their  faith,  and 
who  promised  ”  that  if,  in  lapse  of  time,  some  abuses  had  glided  into  the 
ecclesiastical  state,  they  would  examine  the  matter  with  unremitting 
diligence,  and  abolish  the  abuses  with  all  their  power.”^ 

In  1525-6,  the  terrible  revolt  of  the  peasants  took  place  in  Germany, 
and  penetrated  even  into  Switzerland.  It  had  certainly  grown  out  of  the 
revolutionary  principles  broached  by  the  reformers,  and  it  was  headed  by 
Protestant  preachers,  as  M.  Ruchat,  himself  a  preacher,  admits  in  the 
following  passage  :  ”  Having  at  their  head  the  preachers  of  the  reform,  they 
pillaged,  ravaged,  massacred,  and  burnt  every  thing  that  fell  into  their 
hands.”'’  Sartorius,  another  Protestant  historian  of  Germany,  admits  the 
same.®  All  social  order  was  threatened  with  annihilation  by  these  wild 
fanatics,  whose  number  was  legion  ;  and  Berne,  appalled  by  the  danger, 
made  a  temporary  truce  with  her  tergiversation,  recoiled  from  the  precipice, 
on  the  brink  of  which  she  had  been  standing,  and  fell  back  on  her  old 
vantage  ground  of  conservative  Catholicity.  On  the  21st  of  May,  1526, 
her  grand  council  published  an  edict  for  the  preservation  of  the  old 
religion,  and  its  members  bound  themselves,  hy  a  solemn  oath,  to  maintain 
it  inviolate 

Yet,  in  the  following  year,  Berne  revoked  this  decree,  violated  this 
solemnly  plighted  oath,  joined  the  reformation,  and  lent  her  whole  influ¬ 
ence  to  its  propagation  throughout  Switzerland  !  Her  wavering  ceased  all 
of  a  sudden,  and  her  policy,  hitherto  tortuous  and  always  unprincipled,  now 
became  firmly  settled.  Not  only  she  declared  for  the  reformation,  but  she 
'pared  no  labor,  no  intrigue,  no  money,  —  nothing,  to  make  it  triumph 
every  where.  It  was  mainly  through  her  subsequent  efforts,  that  the 
reformation  was  fastened  on  a  large  portion  of  the  Swiss  republic.  By 
what  means  this  was  accomplished,  we  have  already  intimated  ;  and  now 
we  will  furnish  some  of  the  principal  specifications  and  evidence  bearing 
on  the  subject.  The  facts  we  are  going  to  allege  clearly  prove  this  great 

1  Quoted  by  de  Haller,  p.  18,  note.  2  Ibid  ,  p.  22.  3  Ibid.,  p.  23. 

i  Ibid.,  p.  23.  6  Ibid.  6  Ibid.,  ch.  iv,  p.  27  seqq. 


240  THE  REFORMATION  IN  SWITZERLAND. 


leading  feature  of  the  Swiss  reformation  :  —  that  it  was  only  by  intrigue, 
chicanery,  persecution,  and  open  violence,  that  it  was  finally  established  at 
the  city  of  Berne  and  throughout  the  canton,  as  well  as  in  all  the  other 
cantons  where  Bernese  influence  could  make  itself  felt. 

In  1528,  a  conference,  or  rather  a  species  of  Zuinglian  council,  was  held 
at  Berne,  for  the  purpose  of  deciding  on  the  articles  of  faith  to  be  adopted 
in  the  proposed  reformation.  Zuingle  was  the  master  spirit  of  the  assembly, 
at  which  very  few  Catholics  assisted.  Ten  articles,  or  theses,  were  there 
adopted  by  the  ministers ;  but,  though  drawn  up  with  studied  ambiguity 
and  vagueness,  they  were  still  signed  only  by  a  minority  of  the  Bernese 
clergy,  the  majority  still  clinging  to  the  old  faith.  Yet  the  Bernese  grand 
council  of  state  not  only  adopted  and  confirmed  these  articles,  but  enjoined 
their  adoption  on  all  the  people  of  the  canton.  Pastors  and  cuiates  were 
forbidden  to  teach  any  thing  opposed  to  them  ;  the  mass  was  abolished, 
altars  were  to  be  demolished,  images  to  be  burnt,  and  the  four  bishops  of 
Switzerland  were  declared  deprived  of  all  jurisdiction  !  Moreover,  priests 
were  permitted  to  marry,  and  religious  persons  of  both  sexes  to  leave  their 
convents  ;  the  ministers  were  ordered  to  preach  four  times  each  week  under 
penalty  of  suspension  ;  and  finally  the  council  reserved  to  itself  the  right 
^‘tb  change  this  new  religion  if  any  one  would  prove  to  them  any  thing 
better  by  the  Scriptures.”* 

Such  was  the  tenor  of  the  famous  Bernese  decree,  by  which  the  new 

gospel  was  first  established  by  law.  Nor  did  it  remain  a  dead  letter, 

Violence,  sacrilege,  and  robbery  rioted  throughout  the  canton.  The 

churches  of  the  Catholics  were  forcibly  seized  on,  the  altars  were  over- 

•  .  .  . 

turned,  the  beautiful  decorations  of  paintings  and  statuary  were  defaced  or 
broken  to  pieces,  people  were  forbidden  any  longer  to  worship  at  the  altars 
and  shrines  of  their  fathers  ;  and  very  soon  the  whole  canton  presented  the 
appearance  of  a  country  through  which  an  army  of  Vandals  and  Huns  had 
but  lately  marched.  It  is  a  certain  and  undoubted  fact,  that  the  reforma¬ 
tion  was  forced  upon  the  Bernese  people,  against  the  positive  will  of  the 
majority  !  But  the  minority  were  active,  untiring,  revolutionary,  and  they 
had  the  civil  authorities  to  back  them ;  the  majority  were  often  indifferent 
and  negligent;  their  natural  protectors,  the  Inore  zealous  among  the  clergy, 
had  been  compelled  to  fly  ;  and  thus  left  alone,  a  flock  without  shepherds, 
the  people  were  at  length  wearied  out  and  harassed  into  conformity. 

To  enforce  the  new  religious  law,  commissioners  -were  sent  from  Berne 
into  all  the  communes  of  the  canton,  with  instructions  to  address  the  people, 
and  to  use  every  effort  to  induce  them  to  embrace  the  new  gospel.  After 
their  harangues,  the  matter  was  to  be  immediately  put  to  the  popular  vote, 
boys  of  fourteen  years  being  entitled  to  the  privilege  of  suflfrage  !  If  the 
majority  went  for  the  new  gospel,  even  if  this  majority  consisted  but  of  one 
voice,  the  minority  were  compelled  to  abandon  the  old  religion,  and  the 
mass  was  declared  publicly  abolished  throughout  the  commune  !  If,  on 
the  contrary,  the  majority,  as  was  often  the  case,  in  spite  of  every  entreaty 

1  Ibid.  pp.  52,  63. 


BERNESE  INTRIGUES. 


241 


and  threat,  went  for  the  old  religion,  the  Protestant  minority  still  remained 
free  to  practice  publicly  their  worship.  Moreover,  in  this  latter  case,  the 
vote  of  the  commune  was  again  taken  by  parishes,  in  order  that  those  in 
which  the  majority  were  Protestants  might  be  protected  by  the  civil 
authority.  Even  if  a  commune  voted  unanimously  in  favor  of  Catholicity, 
the  possibility  of  practising  their  religion  was  taken  away  from  the  Catholics 
by  the  banishment  of  their  priests,  and  the  stationing  amongst  them 
of  Protestant  preachers ;  or  if  their  Bernese  Excellencies  graciously 
allowed  them  to  retain  their  pastors,  it  was  only  for  a  time  and  until 
farther  orders!' 

We  ask  whether  all  this  was  not  downright  tyranny  of  the  worst  kind ; 
and  whether  our  assertion  made  above  was  at  all  exaggerated  ?  But  this 
is  not  yet  all,  nor  even  half.  There  were  in  Switzerland  certain  cities  and 
districts  under  the  joint  government  and  control  of  Berne,  Friburg  and 
other  Catholic  cantons.  To  these  Berne  sent  out  her  emissaries,  both 
religious  and  political.  If  they  could  bo  gained  over  to  the  new  religion, 
they  would  probably  throw  off  the  yoke  of  their  Catholic  joint  sovereigns, 
and  fall  solely  under  the  government  of  Berne,  to  say  nothing  of  the  spir¬ 
itual  good  which  would  accrue  to  their  souls  from  the  new  gospel.  Hence 
no  money  nor  intrigue  was  to  be  spared  to  proselytize  them. 

The  fiery  minister,  Farel,  armed  with  Bernese  passports,  and  accom¬ 
panied  or  sustained  by  Bernese  deputies  and  bailiffs,  ran  over  these  common 
cities  and  districts,  with  the  impetuous  fuiy  of  one  possessed  by  an  evil 
spirit.  He  stirred  up  seditions  whitherseover  he  went,  either  against  the  old 
religion  or  against  himself ;  and  his  progress  was  every  where  marked  by 
conflagrations  and  ruins.  In  the  bishopric  of  Bale,  in  several  towns  and 
communes  belonging  to  the  present  canton  of  Vaud,  in  Soleure,  and  else¬ 
where,  this  furious  fanatic  and  political  firebrand  agitated  society  to  its 
very  depths,  and  lashed  popular  passions  into  a  fuiy  which  was  entirely 
uncontrollable.  Wherever  the  populace  could  be  won  over  to  his  party, 
or  even  overawed  into  silence,  he  caused  the  mass  to  be  abolished,  churches 
to  be  stripped,  pillaged,  and  sacrilegiously  desecrated,  and  altars  to  be 
overturned  1  And  the  Bernese  authorities  not  only  calmly  looked  on,  but 
they  even  sanctioned  all  these  ferocious  deeds,  and  cast  the  shield  of  their 
protection  around  the  person  of  Farel.^ 

Insurrections  and  violence  every  where  marked  the  progress  of  the  refor¬ 
mation.  Look,  for  instance,  at  the  following  graphic  picture  of  Switzerland 
during  the  epoch  in  question,  drawn  by  M.  de  Haller  : 

“During  the  years  1529,  1530,  and  1531,  Switzerland  found  herself  in 
a  friiThtful  condition,  and  altogether  similar  to  that  of  which  we  are  now 
witnesses,  three  centuries  later.  Nothing  was  seen  everywhere  but  hatred, 
broils,  and  acts  of  violence  ;  everywhere  reigned  discord  and  division  ; 
discord  between  the  cantons,  discord  in  the  bosom  of  the  governments, 
discord  between  sovereigns  and  subjects,  in  fine,  discord  and  division  even 
in  every  parish  and  in  every  family.  The  defection  of  Berne,  at  which  the 
Zurichers  had  labored  for  six  years,  had  unchained  the  audacity  of  all  the 

2  See  ibid.  p.  71  seq.,  for  detailed  proofs  of  all  thin 

19 


1  Ibid  pp.  5?, 54. 

z 


242  THE  REFORMATION  IN  SWITZERLAND. 

meddlers  and  bad  men  in  Switzerland.  On  all  sides  new  revolutions  broke 
out;  —  at  Bale,  at  St.  Gall,  at  Bienne,  at  Thurgovia,  at  Frauenfeld,  at 
Mellingen,  at  Bremgarten,  even  at  Gaster  and  in  the  Toggenburg,  at 
Herissau,  at  Wettingen,  and  finally  at  SchaflFhousen.  Everywhere  they 
were  brought  about  by  a  band  of  poltroons  or  at  least  of  ignorant  bur¬ 
gesses,  both  turbulent  and  factious,  against  the  will  of  the  intimidated 
magistrates,  and  of  the  more  numerous  and  peaceable  portion  of  the 
inhabitants  who  looked  upon  these  innovations  with  horror,  but  whose 
indignation  was  arrested  and  whose  zeal  was  paralyzed,  as  happens  during 
our  own  days,  by  a  pretended  necessity  of  avoiding  the  effusion  of  blood, 
and  preventing  the  horrors  of  a  civil  war.  Thus  one  party  declared  an 
implacable  war  against  their  fellow-citizens  and  every  thing  that  is  sacred, 
while  the  other  was  condemned  to  suffer  without  resistance  all  manner  of 
injuries,  all  manner  of  hostilities  ;  and  this  state  of  triumphant  iniquity  and 
of  miserable  servitude  was  qualified  by  the  fine  name  of  peace.  Everywhere, 
except  at  Schaffhousen,  a  city  which  was  always  distinguished  for  its 
tranquillity  and  the  peaceful  character  of  its  inhabitants,  seditious  armed 
mobs  rushed  of  their  own  accord  to  the  churches,  broke  down  the  altars, 
burnt  the  images,  destroyed  the  most  magnificent  monuments  of  art,  pillaged 
the  sacred  vases  as  well  as  other  objects  of  value,  and  put  up  for  public 
sale  at  auction  the  sacred  vestments :  by  such  vandalism  and  by  such 
sacrileges  was  the  religious  revolution  of  the  sixteenth  century  signalized.’' 

Just  imagine  that  the  United  States  were  densely  populated  and  filled 
with  cities,  and  that  the  Catholic  religion  were  that  of  the  people  ;  but  that 
:a  religious  revolution  had  been  effected  in  one  of  our  great  cities,  —  say 
Philadelphia,  —  by  violence,  sustained  by  the  civil  authorities  ;  that  there 
all  our  churches  had  been  pillaged  and  desecrated,  a  part  of  them  burned 
down  and  the  other  part  seized  on  for  the  Protestant  worship  ;  that  the 
frensy  spread,  until  similar  scenes  were  enacted  in  half  the  cities  and  towns 
of  our  republic  ;  imagine,  in  a  . word,  the  Philadelphia  riots,  aggravated  a 
hundred  fold,  extending  through  half  the  country,  and  keeping  the  people 
in  a  state  of  anarchy  and  civil  war  for  more  than  twenty  years ;  imagine 
our  hitherto  peaceful  republic  broken  up  by  discord,  and  bathed  in  the 
blood  of  its  citizens,  until  at  last  the  fierce  rioters  sit  down  in  triumph 
amidst  the  ruins  they  had  every  where  strewn  around  them ;  and  you  will 
then  have  some  faint  conception  of  the  rise,  progress,  and  triumph  of  the 
Protestant  reformation  in  a  large  portion  of  Switzerland  !  Recent  events, 
both  in  this  country  and  in  Switzerland,  have  proved  that  Protestantism 
has  not  yet  lost  all  of  its  original  fierceness,  and  that  its  turbulent  spirit 
.has  not  been  yet  entirely  subdued  by  the  onward  march  of  refinement  and 
•civilization. 

As  might  have  been  anticipated,  the  Bernese  met  with  frequent 
resistance  in  their  -eft’orts  to  destroy  the  old  religion,  and  to  force  the  new 
•one  on  the  people.  Popular  insurrections  broke  out  at  Aigle,  and  in  the 
bailiwicks  of  Lentzburg,  Frutigen,  Interlaken,  and  Haut-Siebenthal,  as 
well  as  in  other  places.  How  was  this  resistance  met?  It  was  crushed 
by  main  force,  probably  with  a  view  to  demonstrate  to  all  the  world  how 
sincerely  the  Bernese  were  attached  to  the  great  fundamental  principles 

1  Pp.  62—64. 


BERNESE  INTRIGUES. 


^243 


of  the  reformation, —  that  each  one  should  read  the  Bible  and  judge  for 
himself!  As  M.  de  Haller  says: 

“An  edict  of  persecution  was  issued,  which  directed  that  images  should 
be  everywhere  broken  and  altars  demolished,  as  well  in  the  churches  as 
in  private  houses ;  that  priests  who  yet  said  mass  should  be  everywhere 
hunted  down,  seized  on  wherever  they  could  be  caught,  and  put  in  prison; 
that  every  one  who  spoke  badly  of  the  Bernese  authorities  should  be 
treated  in  like  manner ;  for,  says  M.  Ruchat,  the  Catholics  of  the  canton 
and  vicinity  declaimed  horribly  against  them.  In  case  of  relapse,  the 
priests  were  outlawed  and  delivered  up  to  public  vengeance  :  in  fine,  the 
same  edict  decreed  punishment  against  all  who  should  sustain  these  refrac¬ 
tory  priests  (that  is,  all  who  remained  faithful  to  the  ancient  religion),  or 
who  afforded  them  an  a5\ylum.  A  third  edict  of  the  22d  December, 
forbade  any  one  to  go  into  the  neighboring  cantons  to  hear  mass,  under 
penalty  of  deprivation  for  those  who  held  office,  and  of  arbitrary  punish¬ 
ment  for  private  individuals.”* 

Was  ever  tyranny  and  persecution  carried  further  than  this  ?  And  yet 
this  is  but  one  chapter  in  the  history  of  the  Swiss  reformation.  The  same 
ferocious  intolerance  was  witnessed  wherever  the  reformation  made  its 
appearance,  in  the  once  peaceful  and  happy  land  of  William  Tell.  Did  our 
limits  permit,  we  might  prove  this  by  facts,  as  undeniable  as  they  are 
appalling.  Those  Catholic  priests  who  were  not  willing  to  betray  their 
religion,  or  to  sell  their  conscience  for  a  mess  of  pottage,  were  every¬ 
where  thrown  into  prison  or  banished  the  country.  They  were  succeeded 
by  preachers,  many  of  them  fugitives  from  France  and  Germany,  and 
most  of  them  men  of  little  learning  and  less  piety,  remarkable  only  for  a 
certain  boldness  and  rude  popular  eloquence  or  declamation.  Men  of  this 
stamp,  who  had  suddenly,  and  often  without  vocation  or  ordination, 

.  intruded  themselves  into  the  holy  ministry,  could  not  hope  to  win  or 
secure  the  confidence  of  the  people.  Accordingly,  we  find  the  following 
candid  avowal  on  the  subject,  in  a  confidential  letter  of  the  minister  Capito 
to  Farel,  written  as  late  as  1537.  He  says: 

“The  authority  of  the  ministers  is  entirely  abolished;  all  is  lost,  all 
goes  to  ruin.  The  people  say  to  us  boldly:  you  wish  to  make  yourselves 
the  tyrants  of  the  Church,  you  wish  to  establish  a  new  papacy.  God 
,  makes  me  know  what  it  is  to  be  a  pastor,  and  the  wrong  we  have  done  the 
Church  by  the  precipitate^nd  inconsiderate  vehemence  which  has  (Mused  us 
to  reject  the  Pope,  For  the  people,  accustomed  to  unbounded  freedom,  and 
as  it  were  nourished  by  it,  have  spurned  the  rein  altogether ;  they  cry  out 
to  us :  we  know  enough  of  the  gospel,  what  need  have  we  of  your  help  to 
find  Jesus  Christ?  Go  and  preach  to  those  who  wish  to  hear  you.”^ 

The  intolerance  of  the  Protestant  party  was  surpassed  only  by  its  utter 
inconsistency.  The  glorious  privileges  of  private  judgment,  of  liberty  of 
conscience  and  of  the  press,  were  forever  on  their  lips ;  and  yet  they 
recklessly  trampled  them  all  under  their  feet  1  Each  one  was  to  interpret 
the  Bible  for  himself,  and  yet  he  who  dared  interpret  it  differently  from  their 
Excellencies,  the  counsellors  of  Berne,  was  punished  as  an  enemy  of  the 
government !  The  counter  principle  of  a  union  of  church  and  state,  was 

1  Pp.  57,  58  2  Epistola  ad  Farel.  inter  opist.  Calvini,  p.  6 ;  quoted  by  de  Haller,  p.  99,  note. 


244  THE  REFORMATION  IN  SWITZERLAND. 


even  openly  avowed  and  constantly  acted  on.  The  council  of  ministers, 
held  at  Berne  in  1532,  subscribed  a  confession  of  faith  drawn  up  by  Capito, 
in  which  the  following  remarkable  passages  are  found : 

**  The  ministers  acknowledge  it  is  not  possible  for  them  to  produce 
any  fruit  in  their  church,  unless  the  civil  magistrate  lend  his  assistance  to 
advance  the  good  work.  .  .  .  Every  Christian  magistrate  ouglit,  in  the 
exercise  of  his  power,  to  be  the  lieutenant  and  minister  of  God,  and  to 
maintain  among  his  subjects  the  evangelical  doctrine  and  life,  so  far  at 
least  as  it  is  exercised  outwardly  and  is  practised  in  external  things.'  .... 
The  magistrates  should  then  take  great  care  to  preserve  sound  doctrine;  to 
prevent  error  and  seduction,  to  punish  blasphemy  and  all  outward  sins 
affecting  religion  and  conduct,  to  protect  the  truth  and  good  morals.”^ 

This  forcibly  reminds  us  of  the  doctrines  of  the  nursing  fathers,  so 
much  spoken  of,  even  in  our  American  Presbyterian  Confession  of  Faith, 
As  some  additional  evidence  of  the  love  which  the  Swiss  reformers  bore 
to  the  liberty  of  the  press  and  to  that  of  conscience,  read  the  two 
following  extracts  from  our  author  : 

“  The  Bernese,  who  had  talked  so  much  about  the  liberty  of  conscience 
and  that  of  the  press  while  it  was  a  question  of  establishing  the  reform,  then 
sent  deputies  to  Bale  to  complain  of  the  libels  which  were  there  printed 
against  the  deputies  of  Berne,  and  they  demanded  that  silence  should  be 
jmposed  on  the  preachers  unfavorable  to  the  reform-.  Thus  it  is  that  the 
Protestants  did  not  wish  to  allow  liberty  to  any  one,  so  soon  as  they 
became  the  masters.  The  Bernese  deputation  was,  however,  dismissed 
from  Bale  without  having  attained  its  object.”^ 

In  virtue  of  the  freedom  of  conscience,  the  triumphant  innovators 
removed  all  the  Catholic  counsellors,  and  forbade  any  one  to  preach  against 
what  they  called  the  reform.  At  Bale,  in  particular,  the  nobility  were 
driven  away,  and  the  Catholic  clergy,  the  chapter,  and  even  the  professors 
of  the  university,  abandoned  forever  a  city  of  which  they  were  the 
ornament  and  the  glory,  and  which  owed  to  them  its  lustre  and  its  very 
existence.”  ^ 

Those  who  were  guilty  of  the  unpardonable  crime  of  adhering  tena¬ 
ciously  and  fondly  to  the  time-honored  religion  of  their  fathers,  were 
not  the  only  ones  who  felt  the  smart  of  Protestant  intolerance  in  Swit¬ 
zerland.  Brother  Protestants  were  also  persecuted,  if  they  had  the 
misfortune  to  believe  either  more  or  less  thali  their  more  enlightened 
brethren,  who  happened  to  be  orthodox  for  the  time  being.  The  Anabap¬ 
tists,  in  particular,  were  hunted  down  with  a  ferocity  which  is  almost 
inconceivable.  The  favorite  mode  of  punishing  them,  especially  at  Berne, 
was  by  drowning  !  This  manner  of  death  was  deemed  the  most  appropriate, 
because  it  was  only  baptizing  them  in  their  own  way  !  ®  The  rivers  and 
lakes,  which  abound  in  Switzerland,  often  received  the  dead  bodies  of  these 
poor  deluded  men.  Sometimes,  however,  this  mode  of  punishment  was 
dispensed  with  in  favor  of  others  less  revolting  to  humanity.  Says  M.  de 
Haller : 

“  Their  Excellencies  of  Berne,  not  being  able  to  convince  the  AnabaptistS; 

1  l)e  Haller,  p.  97-  Ue  quotes  lluchat.  2  Ibid  p,  100.  3  Pp.  68,  59. 

4  P.  64.  6  See  pp.  39,  69,  et  ahbi passim. 


BERNESE  INTRIGUES. 


245 


found  it  much  more  simple  to  banish  them,  or  to  throw  them  into  the 
water  and  drown  tliern.  These  punishments  having,  however,  rather 
increased  than  diminished  their  number,  the  council  of  Berne,  being 
embarrassed,  resorted  to  measures  less  severe,  and  acting  under  the  advice 
of  the  ministers,  published  on  the  2d  of  March,  1533,  an  edict  announcing 
that  the  Anabaptists  should  be  left  in  peace,  if  they  would  keep  their 
belief  to  tliemselves,  and  maintain  silence  ;  but  that  if  they  continued  to 
preach  and  to  keep  up  a  separate  sect,  they  should  not  be  any  longer 
condemned  to  death,  but  only  to  perpetual  imprisonment  on  bread  and 
WATER  !  This  was  certainly  a  singular  favor.  Catholics,  who  are 
accused  of  so  much  intolerance,  had  never  molested  the  Zuinglians  who 
had  kept  their  faith  to  themselves,  and  even  when  these  openly  preached 
their  doctrines  from  the  pulpit,  they  were  not  condemned  either  to  death 
or  to  perpetual  imprisonment  on  bread  and  water.”  ‘ 

As  we  have  already  said,  the  progress  of  the  Swiss  reformation  was 
everywhere  marked  by  intrigues,  popular  commotions,  mob  violence,  and 
sacrilege.  So  it  was  at  Geneva,  into  which  the  reformation  was  intro¬ 
duced  in  the  year  1535,  chiefly  again  through  the  intrigues  of  Berne.  It 
was  not  Calvin  who  established  the  reformation  at  Geneva ;  he  only 
reaped  the  harvest  which  had  been  sown  by  others.  The  fiery  Farel, 
shielded  with  the  panoply  of  Bernese  protection  and  acting  in  concert  with 
Bernese  envoys,  had  already  succeeded  in  there  subverting,  to  a  great 
extent,  the  ancient  faith.  And  by  what  means  ?  We  have  not  room  for 
full  details,  for  which  we  must  refer  our  readers  to  a  very  interesting 
chapter  in  M.  de  Haller’s  history.^  Suffice  it  to  say,  that  the  whole  city 
was  thrown  into  commotion  ;  that  the  Catholic  churches  were  violently 
seized  upon,  after  having  been  first  sacrilegiously  defaced  and  desecrated 
in  the  hallowed  name  of  religion  ;  that  the  Catholic  clergy  were  hunted 
down  and  forced  to  fly  the  city ;  that  nearly  half  of  the  population  was 
compelled  to  emigrate,  in  order  to  secure  to  themselves  peace  and  freedom 
of  conscience  ;  that  even  after  they  had  emigrated,  their  property  was 
confiscated  and  they  were  disfranchised,  in  punishment  for  their  having 
dared  leave  the  city;  that  the  harmless  nuns  of  St.  Clare,  after  having 
been  long  harassed  and  insulted  by  the  mob,  were  also  compelled  to 
leave  their  home  and  to  seek  shelter  elsewhere  ;  that  the  Catholic  church 
property  was  seized  upon  by  the  reformed  party  ;  that,  after  having  filled 
the  whole  city,  and  especially  the  churches,  with  the  “  abomination  of 
desolation,”  Farel  and  his  associates  were  able  to  assemble  congre¬ 

gations  and  to  preach,  in  only  two  out  of  the  many  Genevan  churches 
of  which  they  had  obtained  possession  ;  that  even  in  these  they  often 
preached  to  empty  benches,  so  great  was  the  horror  which  all  these 
multiplied  sacrileges  inspired  in  the  popular  mind  ;  and  that,  finally,  the 
reformation  was  established  in  Geneva  by  the  great  council,  and  after¬ 
wards  by  the  swords  and  bayonets  of  the  Bernese  array,  which  entered 
the  city  in  1536  ! 

Such  were  the  first  fruits  of  the  reformation  in  Geneva.  In  the  canton 

* 

of  Vaud,  which  was  invaded  and  subdued  by  the  Bernese  army  in  the 

1  I'p.  lo3,  154.  2  Chap  xvi. 

Z2 


246  THE  KEEOBMATION  IN  SWITZERLAND. 


same  year,  the  proceedings  were,  if  possible,  still  more  violent,  and  the 
policy  still  more  truculent.  Wheresover  the  Bernese  army  marched,  there 
the  reformation  was  established  by  force  of  arms.  The  Bernese  bore  the 
sword  in  one  hand  and  the  Bible  in  the  other;  and  they  established^ 
the  new  gospel  in  Vaud  pretty  much  after  the  Mohammedan  fashion  of 
proselytism ! 

M.  de  Haller  proves  all  this  by  an  array  of  evidence,  which  can  neither 
be  gainsayed  nor  resisted. ‘  He  proves  it  from  the  testimony  of  Ruchat, 
Mallet,  Spon,  and  other  Protestant  historians.  He  furnishes  facts,  with 
names,  dates,  and  specifications  \  facts  as  clear  as  the  noonday  sun  \  facts 
which  we  challenge  any  one  to  deny  or  contravene.  And  we  ask,  whether 
it  be  at  all  likely  tliat  a  reformation  effected  by  such  means,  was,  or  could 
possibly  have  been,  the  work  of  God  ?  Could  God  have  chosen  such 
instruments  and  such  means  to  effect  His  work  ?  Could  He  smile  on 
commotions,  on  riots,  on  robbery,  on  impurity,  on  broken  vows,  on  sacri¬ 
lege  ?  Gracious  heavens  !  How  much  do  those  delude  themselves,  wlio 
still  clino-  to  the  belief  that  the  reformation  was  the  work  of  God!  Well 

O 

may  we  address  to  them,  and  to  all  who  may  chance  to  read  these  pages, 
the  emphatic  words  of  St.  Augustine  prefixed  to  the  title-page  of  M.  de 
Haller’s  work  :  “  Let  those  hear  who  have  not  fallen,  lest  they  fall ;  let 
those  hear  who  have  fallen,  that  they  may  rise  1”^ 

If  it  be  alleged,  that  the  Catholics  too  sometimes  resorted  to  violence  and 
appealed  to  the  sword;  we  answer  that  they  did  so,  almost  without  an 
exception,  only  in  necessary  self-defense.  Their  forbearance,  amidst  all 
the  terrible  outrages  which  we  have  briefly  enumerated,  was  indeed  won¬ 
derful.  If  they  sometimes  repelled  force  by  force  ;  if  they  flew  to  arms 
more  than  once  in  their  own  defense,  it  was  surely  competent  for  them  to  do 
so.  Their  lives  were  threatened,  their  property  was  invaded,  their  altars 
were  desecrated ;  and  surely,  when  consideiations  such  as  these  urg-ed  them' 
to  buckle  on  their  good  swords,  they  were  not  only  excusable,  but  they* 
would  have  been  arrant  cowards  had  they  failed  to  do  so.  And  no  one 
has  ever  yet  dared  to  taunt  with  cowardice  the  brave  mountaineers  of 
Lucerne,  Schwytz,  Uri,  Unterwald,  and  Zug,  who  inherit  the  faith,  the 
country,  and  the  unconquerable  spirit  of  William  Tell.  The  recent  occur¬ 
rences  in  Switzerland  prove  that  this  spirit  has  not  flagged  in  the  lapse  of 
centuries,  that  Catholicity  is  not  incompatible  with  bravery;  and  that 
soldiers  who  pray,  both  before  and  after  battle,  are  under  the  special 
protection  of  the  great  God  of  battles ;  though  He,  for  His  own  wise  and 
inscrutable  purposes,  may  permit  them  sometimes  to  be  overwhelmed  by 
superior  numbers. 

But  whoever  will  read  M.  de  Haller’s  history  must  be  convinced,  that  the 
Swiss  Catholics  were  much  more  forbearing  and  tolerant  than  the  Swiss 
Protestants.  The  former,  in  general,  allowed  the  latter  the  free  exercise 
of  their  religion  in  places  where  these  were  in  the  minority  ;  whereas  there 

1  See  p  271  seqq  and  321  seqq. 

2  Audiant  qui  non  cecideiuut,  ne  cadant ;  audiaut  qui  ceciderunt,  ut  surgant. 


« 


BERNESE  INTRIGUES. 


247 


are,  indeed,  but  few  instances  on  record,  where  the  latter  accorded  the  same 
privilege  to  the  former  under  similar  circumstances.  Did  our  limits  permit, 
we  might  go  fully  into  the  comparison,  and  prove  the  accuracy  of  our 
remark  by  undeniable  evidence.  But  we  must  be  content  with  a  marginal 
reference.'  and  with  the  following  touching  anecdote,  the  scene  of  which  is 
laid  in  the  city  of  Soleure. 

•  The  Protestant  party  had  sought  to  gain  the  ascendency  in  this  place,  by 
entirely  overthrowing  the  Catholic  religion.  For  this  purpose  they  seized 
upon  the  moment  when  nearly  all  the  members  of  the  council  were  absent, 
for  entering  into  a  conspiracy  to  take  possession  of  “  the  arsenal  and  of  the 
Franciscan  church,  to  surprise  the  priests  in  their  bed,  and  to  massacre  all 
the  Catholics  in  case  of  resistance.”^  The  conspiracy  was,  however,  dis¬ 
covered  to  the  avoyer^ov  chief  magistrate,  left  in  charge  of  the  city — • 
Nicholas  de  Wengi ;  and  he  took  every  prudent  precaution  against  the 
meditated  attack.  On  the  30th  day  of  October,  1533,  at  one  hour  after 
midnight,  the  conspirators  rushed  to  the  assault ;  but  they  were  amazed  to 
find  nearly  half  the  city  turned  out  ready  to  receive  them,  and  to  defend 
themselves  to  the  last  extremity.  After  a  sharp  encounter,  in  which  the 
arsenal  was  successively  taken  and  retaken,  without,  however,  any  effusion 
of  blood,  the  conspirators  were  finally  driven  off.  But,  though  beaten, 
these  had  not  yet  given  up  the  contest.  They  retired  beyond  the  bridge, 
and  having  intrenched  themselves,  began  to  insult  the  Catholics.  Indig¬ 
nant,  the  latter  rushed  to  the  arsenal,  brought  a  cannon  to  bear  upon  the 
Protestant  intrenchment,  and  fired  one  shot,  but  without  effect.  Just  as 
they  were  preparing  to  fire  another,  the  venerable  avoyer  Wengi  rushed, 
out  of  breath,  before  the  cannon’s  mouth,  and  exclaimed  :  “  Beloved  and 
pious  fellow-citizens,  if  you  wish  to  fire  against  the  other  side,  I  will  bo 
your  first  victim  ;  consider  better  the  state  of  things.”^  His  interposition 
was  effectual ;  calm  was  restored  ;  and  the  insurgents  left  the  city. 

We  will  conclude  this  paper,  already  long  enough,  by  glancing  rapidly 
at  the  war  of  Cappell  in  1531,  the  first  great  religious  war  that  ever  was 
waged  in  Switzerland.'*  And  we  do  this  the  more  willingly,  because  it 
seems  to  us  that  there  is  a  striking  parallelism  between  this  first  and  the 
last  religious  war  to  which  we  have  already  alluded.  In  both,  the  Cath¬ 
olics  acted  strictly  on  the  defensive  ;  in  both.  Lucerne  was  at  the  head  -of 
the  Catholic  party  ;  in  both,  the  genuine  children  of  Tell  proved  themselves 
worthy  of  him,  of  their  ancestral  glory,  of  their  country.  There  is,  however, 
this  important  difference  in  the  two  wars,  that  whereas  in  the  first  the 
Catholics  were  triumphant,  in  the  last,  after  having  performed  prodigies 
of  valor,  they  were  finally  overwhelmed  by  main  force. 

In  the  beginning  of  the  year  1531,  the  Protestant  cantons,  and  especially 
Zurich,  flagrantly  violated  the  treaty  concluded  in  1529,  by  which  the 
Catholic  and  Protestant  cantons  had  mutually  promised  not  to  molest  or 

1  I)e  Haller,  pp.  72,  150  note,  156,  272,  &c, 

2  I*.  157.  3  P.  159. 

4  There  had  been  some  troubles  in  1629,  which  were,  however,  settled  without  much  effu.sion  of 
blood. 


248  THE  REP.ORMATION  IN  SWITZERLAND. 


interfere  with  one  another  on  account  of  religion.  After  having  fomented 
troubles  in  various  districts  partly  under  the  control  of  the  Catholic  cantons, 
Zurich  at  length  openly  invaded  the  territory  of  St.  Gall,  and  issued  a 
decree  forbidding  the  five  neighboring  Catholic  cantons  to  trade  with  her 
subjects  in  corn  and  salt.  The  object  of  this  embargo  was,  to  cut  off  from 
the  Catholic  mountaineers  the  supplies  which  they  had  been  in  the  habit 
of  deriving  by  commerce  from  those  living  in  the  plains,  and  thereby  to 
starve  them  into  acquiescence  in  the  glorious  work  of  the  reformation! 
Zuingle  and  the  preachers  openly  clamored  for  the  blood  of  the  Catholics, 
in  their  public  harangues  in  Zurich .  Here  is  an  extract  from  one  of  the 
great  Swiss  reformer’s  sermons,  delivered  on  the  21st  September,  1531  : 

“  Rise  up,  attack  ;  the  five  cantons  are  in  your  power.  I  will  march  at 
the  head  of  your  ranks,  and  the  nearest  to  the  enemy.  Then  you  will  feel 
the  power  of  God,  for  when  I  shall  harangue  them  with  the  truth  of  the 
word  of  God,  and  shall  say  :  whom  seek  you,  0  ye  impious  1  then,  seized 
with  terror  and  with  panic,  they  will  not  be  able  to  answer,  but  they  will 
fall  ba(;k,  and  will  take  to  flight,  like  the  Jews  on  the  mountain  of  Olives 
at  the  word  of  Christ.  You  will  see  that  the  artillery  which  they  will 
direct  against  us,  will  turn  against  themselves,  and  will  destroy  them. 
Their  pikes,  their  halberds,  and  their  other  arms,  shall  not  hurt  you,  but 
will  hurt  them.”' 

This  discourse  was  printed  and  circulated ;  but  alas  for  the  prophetic 
faculty  of  the  reformer !  The  event  falsified  his  prediction  in  every 
particular.  And,  as  Zuingle  himself  marked  the  preparations  the  five 
cantons  were  making  for  the  coming  struggle,  even  his  own  heart  failed 
him ;  and  the  lately  inspired  prophet  of  God  dwindled  down  into  a 
miserable  poltroon,  overcome  by  terror,  and  pretending  to  have  had 
strange  presentiments,  and  observed  strange  signs  in  the  heavens  1 
Nevertheless,  the  Zurichers  compelled  him  to  march  at  their  head  to  the 
village  of  Cappel,  near  the  confines  of  the  hostile  cantons. 

Here  the  two  armies  encountered ;  but  fiery  and  fanatical  as  were  the 
Zuinglians,  they  could  not  withstand  the  impetuous  charge  of  the  brave 
•  Swiss  mountaineers.  These  carried  everything  before  them.  The  Zu¬ 
richers  took  to  flight  in  great  disorder,  with  the  loss  of  “  nineteen  cannon, 
four  stands  of  colors,  all  their  baggage,  and  of  at  least  fifteen  hundred 
men,  among  whom  were  twenty-seven  magistrates,  and  fifteen  preach¬ 
ers.”^  Zuingle,^ the  apostle  of  Switzerland,  fell,  sword  in  hand,  fighting 
the  battles  of  the  Lord,  as  never  apostle  had  fought  them  before  ! 

The  Zurichers,  however,  recovered  from  their  fright  in  a  few  days,  and 
on  the  21st  of  October,^  “having  been  reinforced  by  their  allies  of  Saint 
Gall,  of  Toggenburg,  of  Thurgovia,  and  even  of  the  Grisons,  of  Berne,  of 
Bale,  and  of  Soleure,  they  again  attacked  the  Catholics  with  very  superior 

•ces  ;  but  they  were  a  second  time  defeated  at  the  mountain  of  Zug,  and 
took  to  flight  in  disorder,  abandoning  their  artillery,  their  money,  and 
their  batro'aii’e.”' 

oo  o 

1  Quoted  by  de  Haller,  pj>.  78,  79,  note.  2  Ibid,  pp.  79,  80. 

2  The  battle  of  Cappell  was  fou-'ht  on  the  11th  of  October.  4  P  81. 


BERNESE  INTRIGUES. 


249 


The  Catholic  army  now  marched  in  triumph  almost  to  the  very  walls 
of  Zurich,  after  having  a  third  time  defeated  the  Zurichers,  and  driven 
them  from  their  position.'  The  Zuinglians,  thus  humbled  by  defeat, 
were  now  disposed  to  accede  to  the  terms  of  peace  proposed  by  the 
Catholic  cantons.  The  treaty  bound  the  Zurichers  “to  leave  the  five 
cantons,  with  their  allies  and  adherents,  from  the  present  to  all  future 
time,  in  peaceable  possession  of  their  ancient^  true^  and  undoubted 
Christian  faith,  without  molesting  or  importuning  them  with  disputes  or 
chicanery,  and  renouncing  all  evil  intentions,  stratagems,  and  finesse  ;  and 
that,  on  their  side,  the  five  cantons  would  leave  the  Zurichers  and  their 
adherents  free  in  their  belief ;  that  in  the  common  districts,  of  which  the 
cantons  were  co-sovereigns,  the  parishes  which  had  embraced  the  new 
faith,  might  retain  it  if  it  suited  them,  that  those  which  had  not  yet 
renounced  the  ancient  faith  would  also  be  free  to  retain  it,  and  that,  in 
fine,  those  who  should  wish  to  return  to  the  true  and  ancient  Christian 
faith  would  have  the  right  to  do  so.’^  ^  The  Zurichers  farther  bound 
themselves 'to  pay  or  rather  to  restore  to  the  five  cantons,  the  money  which 
the  latter  had  expended  in  the  difficulties  of  1529  ;  and  to  replace,  at  their 
own  expense,  the  ornaments  destroyed  or  forcibly  taken  from  the  different 
churches  during  the  preceding  years. 

Thus  terminated  the  war  of  Cappell.  It  left  the  Catholics  in  the 
ascendant,  and  contributed  more  than  anything  else  to  check  the  headlong 
progress  of  the  Swiss  reformation. 


l  Pago.  88. 


2  Pago.  85. 


XIII.  PRESCOTT’S  CONQUEST  OF  MEXICO. ♦ 


ARTICLE  I. 

CHARACTER  OF  THE  CONQUERORS. 

Prescott  as  an  historian — Compared  with  other  American  writers — His  style  and  manner — Qualities 
essential  to  an  historian— Prescott's  research — His  authorities— His  accuracy — His  impartiality — 
His  religious  prejudices— The  ghost  of  the  Inquisition  haunts  him — His  gross  charges  against  th* 
Catholic  Church — His  enthusiasm  awakened — Itomantic  character  of  the  conquest — Rapid  sketch 
of  its  history — Character  of  the  conquerors — Hernando  Cortes — Compared  with  ancient  generals — 
Was  the  conquest  justifiable  ?— Principles  and  facts  bearing  on  this  question — Horrid  human  sacri¬ 
fices  among  the  Aztecs — The  Spaniards  and  the  Puritans  compared — Were  the  conquerors  wantonly 
cruel  ?  —  Facts  and  specifications  alleged  and  explained — Palliating  circumstances — Seizure  of 
Ulontezuma — And  execution  of  Guatamozin — Prescott’s  testimony — Spanish  conquest  of  Mexico  and 
English  conquest  of  Indiacompared — Cortes  and  Lord  Clive — Macaulay. 

The  History  of  the  Conquest  of  Mexico  is  truly  a  splendid  work  on  a 
splendid  subject.  Much  as  we  expected  from  the  accomplished  historian 
of  the  magnificent  reign  of  Ferdinand  and  Isabella,  our  expectations  have 
not  been  disappointed  in  the  present  work.  It  not  only  fully  sustains,  but 
it  even  elevates  the  character  of  Mr.  Prescott  as  an  historian.  We  view  his 
second  as  far  superior  to  his  first  production,  both  in  matter  and  manner; 
and  we  have  not  a  doubt,  that  if  he  persevere  in  the  career  upon  which  he 
has  so  liappily  entered,  he  will  rank  ere  long  among  the  very  first,  if  not  as 
the  first,  of  our  writers,  and  will  stand  very  high  even  in  proud  and  jealous 
Eno'land. 

o 

The  style  of  the  present  work  is  chaste,  polished,  dramatic  ;  and  it  com¬ 
pares  favorably  with  that  of  any  American  writer  with  whom  we  are 
acquainted,  not  excepting  even  the  exquisite  Washington  Irving.  It 
combines  something  of  the  chaste  smoothness  and  delicate  taste  of  Irving, 
with  the  liveliness  of  Paulding  and  Stephens  ;  while  it  is,  to  a  great  extent, 
free  from  the  carelessness  and  occasional  bad  taste  of  the  two  last,  and  of 
Cooper  ;  and  it  is  far  superior,  in  every  respect,  to  that  of  the  inflated  and 
transcendental  Bancroft.  The  constant  sweetness  of  Irving  cloys.  After 
perusing  one  of  his  works,  you  feel  as  if  you  had  spent  a  day  in  a  rich 
flower  garden,  laid  off  with  exquisite  taste,  and  filled  with  the  choicest 
plants  :  you  are  delighted  with  every  thing ;  you  behold  nothing  to  find 
fault  witli,  but,  in  the  evening,  your  head  is  wearied,  and  it  aches  with 
.he  excessive  fragrance. 

^History  of  the  Conquest  of  Mexico,  with  a  Preliminary  View  of  the  Ancient  Mexican 
Civilization,  and  the  Life  of  the  Conqueror,  Hernando  Cortez.  By  William  H.  Prescott. 
Author  of  the  History  of  Ferdinand  and  Isabella.  In  3  vols.  8  vo.  pp.  488,  480,  524 
Harper  &  Brothers,  New  York,  1843.  250 


CHARACTER  OP  THE  CONQUERORS. 


251 


The  atmosphere  in  which  Mr.  Prescott  moves  is  less  aromatic,  but  is, 
perhaps  for  this,  all  the  purer  and  more  refreshing.  His  Conquest  of 
Mexico  loses  little  by  comparison  with  the  Life  of  Columbus  and  Astoria, 
perhaps  the  best  historical  works  of  Irving,  —  productions  which  do  not 
appear  to  come  under  the  remark  just  made.  In  other  respects,  however, 
Prescott  falls  greatly  below  Irving, —  in  modesty,  in  good  humor,  in 
freedom  from  undue  prejudice. 

Still  it  would  be  exaggerated  eulogy  to  say  that  Mr.  Prescott’s  style  is 
wholly  faultless.  The  severe  critic  will  perhaps  find  it  too  stiff  and  labored' 
in  the  introduction,  and  occasionally  too  tame  or  careless  in  the  body  of 
the  work.  The  former  evidently  smells  of  the  lamp;  in  it  the  writer  appears 
ill  at  ease  ;  he  treads  the  stage  clad  in  the  buskin  and  uniform.  In  the 
latter  he  descends,  puts  on  a  graceful  deshabille,  and  intermingles  carelessly 
in  the  stirring  scenes  of  life.  And  as  far  as  style  is  concerned,  we  are 
free  to  acknowledge,  that  we  greatly  prefer  too  much  carelessness  to  too 
great  rigidity. 

The  introduction,  comprising  two  hundred  pages  on  the  Aztec  civiliza¬ 
tion,  is  one  of  the  most  highly  wrought  and  elaborate  essays  we  have  ever 
read.  This,  together  with  another  essay  in  the  appendix  to  the  third 
volume,  on  the  origin  of  the  Aztec  civilization,  the  author  assures  us, 

cost  him  as  much  labor,  and  nearly  as  much  time,  as  the  remainder  of  the 
history.”*  The  inquiry  into  the  origin  of  the  Aztec  civilization  furnishes 
a  very  learned,  though  somewhat  skeptical,  view  of  the  various  theories  of 
antiquaries,  for  explaining  what  Mr.  Prescott  calls,  “  the  riddle  of  the 
Sphinx,  which  no  GEdipus  has  yet  had  the  ingenuity  to  solve.”^  And  the 
result  of  his  labors  proves  that  he  himself  is  no  CEdipus ;  he  reaches  a  con¬ 
clusion  which  strongly  reminds  us  of  that  of  Johnson’s  Rasselas,,“  in  which 

nothinof  is  concluded.’’^ 

o  I  _ 

The  introduction  embodies,  in  a  highly  condensed  form,  whatever  Cla- 
vigero,  Sahagun,  Torquemada,  Boturini,  Veytia,  Camargo,  Ixtlilxochitl,^ 
Baron  Humboldt,  Lord  Kingsborough,  and  other  learned  antiquaries  had 
written  on  the" interesting  subject  of  the  Aztec  civilization.  From  it  we 
gather,  that  however  advanced  the  nations  of  Anahuac  might  have  been  in 
civilization,  they  were  still  in  a  very  rude  and  and  savage  condition.  Their 
ignorance  of  the  metals,  and  of  the  use  of  domestic  beasts  of  burden  ;  their 
imperfect  and  cumbrous  picture-writing ;  their  mean  and  crouching  sub¬ 
serviency  to  the  will  of  a  despot ;  and  above  all,  their  brutish  cannibalism, 
and  their  loathsome  human  sacrifices,  all  contributed  to  sink  them  very 
low  in  the  scale  of  civilization.  From  their  semi-civilized,  or  rather  wholly 
barbaric  condition,  even  Voltaire  could  not  contrive  to  make  out  a  plausible 
'argument,  or  even  a  sneer,  against  Christianity. 

It  appears  to  us  that  Mr.  Prescott’s  forte  lies  in  description.  Many  of 

1  Pref.  p.  X.  2  Prescott  iii,  376.  3  Cf.  Ibid,  iii,  418. 

4  Tile  Mexican  name  of  a  distinp:uished  Indian  writer — the  lord  of  Tezcuco.  Those  wlio  are 
fitartied  at  this  euphonious  name,  may  fry  whether  they  can  pronounce,  ac  a  Ineath.  the  following 
specimens  of  Mexican  diction  :  Nottazornahuiztcopixcatatzin,  the  name  of  a  priest ;  or  this  name  of  a 
Amatlacuilolitquitcatlaxtlahuitli  !  !  See  Prescott,  iii,  395  note. 


252 


Prescott’s  conquest  of  Mexico. 


his  descriptions,  whether  of  scenery,  of  battles,  or  of  natural  phenomena, 
are  peculiarly  dramatic  :  some  of  tliem  have  the  vividness  of  pictures.  We 
might  furnish  many  examples  of  this  from  the  History  of  the  Conquest. 
But  we  have  much  to  say  on  a  theme  so  ample  and  inviting,  and  our  limits 
are  very  contracted.  Hence  we  must  reluctantly  confine  ourselves  to 
those  passages  which  will  naturally  come  up  in  the  train  of  our  remarks ; 
and  we  can  barely  allude  to  the  following  additional  ones  which  struck  us 
forcibly,  viz  :  the  graphic  description  of  a  storm  which  broke  over  Mexico 
on  the  night  of  the  Conquest the  vivid  account  of  the  storming  of  the 
great  temple  by  Cortez  and  his  veterans  and  the  lively  manner  in  which 
are  painted  the  dreadful  horrors  of  the  Noclie  Triste? 

But  style,  however  important,  is  not  everything  in  an  historian.  It  is  to 
him  what  drapery  is  to  a  statue.  To  ascertain  the  real  merit  of  the  work, 
we  should  examine  the  proportions  and  symmetry  of  tlie  figure  itself,  its 
fidelity  as  a  representation  of  the  original,  and  the  amount  of  artistic  skill 
displayed  in  its  formation.  Research,  accui-acy,  and  impartiality,  are  three 
essential  qualities  of  a  good  historian. 

Without  the  first,  he  were  wholly  unqualified  for  the  task ;  he  would  be 
like  an  artist  without  suitable  materials  and  tools.  Without  the  second,  all 
research,  however  laborious,  would  be  thrown  away  ;  and  the  historian 
would  resemble  the  statuary,  who,  with  polished  instruments  and  beautiful 
marble,  should  still,  through  carelessness  or  want  of  genius,  execute  but  a 
wretched  piece.  Finally,  without  the  third,  all  previous  research,  as  well 
as  the  sincere  wish  to  be  accurate,  would  generally  prove  unavailing :  the 
historian  would  perhaps  unconsciously  miscolor  or  misstate  facts.  His 
work  would  resemble  that  of  a  painter  who,  thougli  not  deficient  in  labor, 
mechanical  skill,  and  exactness,  should  yet  spoil  his  piece  with  misplaced 
or  excessive  coloring. 

Does  Mr.  Prescott  possess  these  three  qualities  essential  to  an  historian  ? 
We  would  be  much  pleased  to  be  able  to  answer,  without  exception  or  res¬ 
ervation,  in  the  affirmative  :  we  are  really  partial  to  the  man,  who,  besides 
being  a  fellow-countryman,  exhibits  himself  in  his  writings  the  easy  and 
polished  gentleman.  We  feel  no  disposition  to  do  him  the  least  injustice  ; 
and  deeply  do  we  regret  that  a  love  of  truth  compels  us  to  give  different 
answers  in  regard  to  these  different  characteristics  of  the  historian. 

His  laborious  research  is  unquestionable.  He  has  thoroughly  examined, 
and  seems  to  have  carefully  sifted  all  the  original  authorities  in  relation 
to  the  Conquest.  To  obtain  the  necessary  documents,  many  of  which 
were  in  manuscript,  he  spared  no  labor  nor  expense.  The  great  facilities 
which  his  previous  researches  had  already  afforded  him,  while  he  was 
preparing  the  History  of  Ferdinand  and  Isabella,  were  still  farther 
increased  by  the  kindness  and  liberality  of  many  of  the  leading  Spanish 
literati  of  the  day.  He  was  allowed  free  access  to  the  valuable  papers 
collected  with  great  labor  and  care  by  Don  Juan  Baptista  Munoz,  the 
indefatigable  royal  historiographer  of  the  Indies ;  as  well  as  to  those  of 
1  I’rt'Scott,  iij,  208,  et  seq.  2  Ibid,  ii,  334,  et.  seq.  3  Ibid,  ii,  861,  et,  seq 


CHARACTER  OF  THE  CONQUERORS. 


253 


Don  Vargas  Ponce,  the  late  president  of  the  royal  academy  of  history  at 
Madrid,  The  present  liberal  president  of  this  academy,  the  learned  and 
accomplished  Don  Martin  Fernandes  de  Xavarette,  also  permitted  the  free 
use  of  his  numerous  manuscripts.* 

From  these  ample  collections,  the  accumulation  of  half  a  century,  he 
obtained  no  less  than  eight  thousand  pages  of  unpublished  documents.** 
He  was  also  greatly  aided  in  his  task  by  men  of  distinguished  learning  in 
Mexico ;  among  whom  he  names  with  gratitude  Count  Cortina,  Don 
Lucas  Alaman,  the  minister  of  foreign  affairs,  and  his  friend,  Don  Angel 
Calderon  de  la  Barca,  late  minister  plenipotentiary  of  the  court  of  Madrid 
to  the  Mexican  republic,  and  subsequently  to  the  United  States.® 

To  these  abundant  sources  of  information,  was  added  the  liberal  aid  of 
several  Italian  scholars  of  eminence,  among  whom  the  most  conspicuous  was 
the  duke  of  Monteleone,  the  heir  and  representative  of  Cortes,  who  freely 
communicated  the  family  papers.'*  With  all  these  facilities,  Mr.  Prescott 
was  enabled  to  give  to  the  world,  we  believe  for  the  first  time,  the  whole 
substance,  and  a  partial  translation  of  the  famous  fifth  despatch  or  Carta 
Quinta  of  Cortes,  detailing  the  startling  events  of  his  dreadful  march 
through  Chiapato  Honduras.® 

Most  of  the  original  histoi-ians  of  the  Conquest,  as  well  as  -those  who 
composed  the  earliest  and  best  accounts  of  it  from  the  original  authorities, 
were  either  Spaniards  or  Mexicans.  To  the  former  class  —  by  far  the 
most  numerous  and  important  —  belong  the  terse  and  vigorous  Cortes 
himself,  the  sympathetic,  enthusiastic  and  exaggerating  Las  Casas,  the 
faithful  Torquemada,  the  profound  antiquary  Sahagun,  the  concise  and 
elegant  Gomara,  the  pious  and  learned  Toribio,  the  classical  Herrera,  the 
judicious  Zurita,  the  brilliant  though  more  recent  De  Solis,  and  last,  not 
least,  that  charming  old  gossipping  chronicler,  Bernal  Diaz,  himself  one 
of  the  Conquerors.  To  the  latter  belong  the  accomplished  and  elaborate 
Father  Clavigero,  a  native  of  Vera  Cruz  ;  the  learned  and  diffuse 
Ixtlilxochitl,  the  lord  of  Tezcuco  ;  Munoz  Camargo,  the  historian  of 
Tlascala  ;  and  the  later  Antonio  Mariano,  Veytia,  Gama,  and  Archbishop 
Lorenzana.® 

To  these  authors  we  may  add  Boturini,  a  learned  antiquary,  who, 
though  an  Italian  by  birth,  yet  wrote  in  Spanish.  And  be  it  borne  in 
mind,  that  the  most  ancient  and  famous  of  all  these  writers — Sahagun, 
Torquemada,  Gomara,  Las  Casas,  Toribio,  and  Clavigero  —  were  all 
Catholic  priests.  But  for  their  labors  and  patient  researches,  in  fact,  our 
accounts  of  the  Conquest  would  have  been  meagre  indeed. 

All  these  early  historians  our  author  seems  to  have  thoroughly  studied 
and  examined.  Appropriate  references  to  them  fill  the  margin  of  his 
pages.  He  furnishes  chapter  and  verse  for  every  important  statement ; 
and  where  the  original  authors  disagree,  he  seems  fairly  to  canvass  their 

1  Pref.  pp.  Ti.  Tii.  2  Ibid.  3  Ibid..  4  Ibid.  viii. 

6  Volume  iii.  p  27£l,  et  seq.  and  Appendix,  No.  XIV. 

6  Mr.  Prescott  furnishes  ns  with  excellent  and  well  written  sketches  of  all  these  distinguished 
writers:  and  this  is  perhaps  one  of  the  greatest  merits  of  his  book. 

2  A 


254  Prescott’s  conquest  of  Mexico. 


respective  weight  and  arguments.  We  are  delighted  with  this :  there  is 
some  satisfaction  in  reading  an  author  who  thus  proves  himself  fully 
acquainted  with  his  subject.  No  one  who  has  carefully  perused  the 
history  of  the  Conquest  can  deny  to  the  accomplished  writer  the  praise  of 
ample  research. 

His  general  accuracy  seems  equally  unquestionable.  Whenever  his 
judgment  is  not  unduly  biassed,  he  does  substantial  justice  both  to  the 
subject,  and  to  the  character  of  the  Conquerors.  He  manifests  in  general 
a  charming  moderation,  and  he  furnishes  his  readers  with  the  arguments 
on  both  sides  of  the  more  important  questions  which  arise.  Perhaps  he 
even  carries  this  apparent  fairness  too  far :  he  occasionally  falls  into  the 
error  of  the  modern  eclectic  school  of  history,  which  makes  it  fashionable 
to  support  both  sides  of  an  historical  argument  with  so  much  plausibility, 
as  almost  to  bewilder  the  understanding,  and  to  leave  the  real  position  of 
the  historian  a  complete  puzzle.* 

But  the  most  important  question  is  r.was  he  really  impartial  ?  Did  he 
approach  the  subject  with  a  mind  free  from  all  undue  bias  ?  Was  there 
no  lurking  prejudice  to  cause  obliquity  of  view  ?  In  other  words,  would 
he  have  drawn  precisely  the  same  picture  of  the  Conquerors,  had  they  not 
been  Roman  Catholics  ?  Has  he,  in  one  word,  redeemed  the  pledge  given 
by  himself  in  his  preface  ?  — 

“  I  have  endeavored  not  only  to  present  a  picture  true  in  itself,  but  to 
place  it  in  its  proper  light,  and  to  put  the  spectator  in  a  proper  point  of 
view  for  seeing  it  to  the  best  advantage.  I  have  endeavored  at  the 
expense  of  some  repetition  to  surround  him  with  the  spirit  of  the  times, 
and,  in  a  word,  to  make  him,  if  I  may  so  express  myself,  a  cotemporary 
of  the  sixteenth  century.  Whether,  and  how  far,  I  have  succeeded  in  this, 
he  must  determine.^^ 

Availing  ourselves  of  the  privilege  thus  extended  to  us,  as  one  of  his 
readers,  we  regret  to  have  to  express  the  deliberate  conviction,  that  he 
has  not  “  succeeded  ”  in  accomplishing,  to  the  full,  what  he  “  endeavored” 
to  do,  with  so  much  apparent  honesty  of  purpose.  More  than  once 
religious  prejudice  has  betrayed  him  into  grievous  error,  as  well  as  into, 
gross  injustice  to  the  Conquerors.  And  we  say  it  the  more  freely,  as  it  is 
almost  the  only  stain  on  an  otherwise  faultless  book, —  a  dark  spot,  or 
rather  a  collection  of  spots  on  the  sun, —  which,  however,  it  requires  no 
telescope  to  discover.  We  regret  this  fault  the  more,  as  such  prejudice  is 
wholly  unworthy  the  enlightened  and  moderate  mind  of  Mr.  Prescott ;  and 
it  will  add  nothing  to  his  posthumous  fame. 

What  particular  set  of  religious  opinions  he  entertains,  or  whether  he 
entertain  any,  we  have  no  means  of  ascertaining.  From  some  passages  in 
his  work,  we  would  infer  that  his  religious  tenets  sit  very  lightly  on  him. 

1  We  have  defected  a  few  inaccuracies,  not,  however,  of  much  moment.  We  will  mention  one- 
Inanote(vol.  i,  p.  280),  he  alleges  this  testimony  of  a  Spanish  writer :  ‘‘Cortes  came  into  the 
world  the  same  day  that  that  infernal  beast,  the  false  heretic,  Luther,  went  out  of  ic,”  and  he 
concludes  from  it,  that,  according  to  this  writer,  Cortes  was  born  in  1483.  Now  this  is  the  date,  not 
of  Luther's  ‘‘  going  out  of  the  world,’’  which  happened  in  1546,  but  of  his  “  coming  into  it.”  There 
is  an  error  somewhere. 


CHARACTER  OF  THE  CONQUERORS. 


255 


But  one  thing  is  certain :  his  prejudices  against  every  person  and  thing 
Catholic  flow  in  a  strong  and  turbid  current,  whicli  bears  him  along  on 
its  foamy  waters,  and  overwhelms  at  times  his  otherwise  clear  intellect. 
We  will  furnish  a  few  out  of  many  proofs  of  this,  to  show  how  much 
fairness  and  impartiality  we  may  expect,  even  from  the  polishc  I  Mr. 
Prescott,  whenever  our  religious  principles  are  involved.  These  specifi¬ 
cations  will  further  enable  the  impartial  to  judge,  with  how  many  grains 
of  allowance  many  of  his  statements  concerning  the  essentially  religious 
character  of  the  Conquest  and  of  the  Conquerors  are  to  be  received. 

He  seems  to  be  terribly  haunted  by  the  ghost  of  the  defunct  Spanish 
Inquisition.  Its  “  raw  head  and  bloody  bones  ”  must  have  been  an 
almost  hourly  apparition  to  him,  while  engaged  in  preparing  his  work ; 
and  we  have  no  doubt  that  he  was  often  startled,  amidst  his  historical 
researches,  by  suddenly  observing  its  fiery  eye-balls  fiercely  glaring  at 
him  through  the  keyhole  of  his  study  !  Foully  has  he  been  dealt  with, 
and  grossly  misled,  by  that  miscreant  traitor  and  apostate,  Llorente.*  It 
is  really  deplorable,  that  a  man  of  Mr.  Prescott’s  liberal  and  enlightened 
mind  should  have  permitted  his  credulity  to  be  thus  sported  with  by  such 
a  wretch. 

That  this  language  is  not  too  severe,  will  be  manifest  from  the  following 
extracts  from  the  History  of  the  Conquest.  Speaking  of  the  horrible 
human  sacrifices  enjoined  by  the  Aztec  religion,  he  says : 

Thus  we  find  the  same  religion  inculcating  lessons  of  pure  philan¬ 
thropy  on  the  one  hand,  and  of  merciless  extermination,  as  we  shall  soon 
see,  on  the  other.  The  inconsistency  will  not  appear  incredible  to  those 
who  are  familiar  with  the  history  of  the  Roman  Catholic  Church  in  the 
early  ages  of  the  inquisition.”  ‘ 

According  to  him  the  Aztec  priests,  preparing  their  victims  for  the 
dreadful  sacrifice  and  gloating  over  their  excruciating  tortures,  were  but 
the  inquisitors,  or  as  he  says  in  another  place,  the  “Dominicans”  of  the 
new  world  ! 

“It  should  be  remarked,  however,  that  such  tortures  were  not  the 
spontaneous  suggestions  of  cruelty,  as  with  the  North  American  Indians  ; 
but  were  all  religiously  prescribed  in  the  Aztec  ritual,  and  doubtless  were 
often  inflicted  with  the  same  compunctious  visitings  which  a  devoutfamiliar 
of  the  holy  office  might  at  times  experience  in  executing  its  stern  decrees.”  ^ 

In  the  course  of  his  History,  he  drags  in  this  odious  comparison  by  the 
heels,  usque  ad  nauseam;  and  he  even  seems  greatly  to  prefer  the  human 
sacrifices  of  the  Aztecs  to  those  made  by  the  inquisition !  Thus,  to 
reconcile  his  exaggerated  theory  of  the  Aztec  civilization  with  the  practice- 
of  human  sacrifices  in  Anahuac,  he  says : 

One  may,  perhaps,  better  understand  the  anomaly,  by  reflecting  on  the 
condition  of  some  of  the  most  polished  countries  in  Europe,  in  tlie  sixteenth 
century,  after  the  establishment  of  the  modern  inquisition ;  an  institution 
which  yearly  destroyed  its  thousands,  by  a  death  more  painful  than  the 

1  The  character  of  this  man  has  been  already  exhibited,  in  our  paper  on  the  Spanish  Inquisition. 

2  Vol  I,  p.  71.  3  Ibid.  p.  77. 


256 


Prescott’s  conquest  of  Mexico. 


Aztec  sacrifices:  which  armed  brother  against  brotlier,  and  setting  its 
burning  seal  upon  the  lip,  did  more  to  stay  the  march  of  improvement 
than  any  other  scheme  ever  devised  by  human  cunning.  .  .  The  inquisi¬ 
tion,  on  the  other  hand,  branded  its  victims  with  infamy  in  this  world, 
and  consigned  them  to  everlasting  perdition  in  the  next.  One  detestable 
feature  of  the  Aztec  superstition,  however,  sunk  it  far  below  the  Christian. 
This  was  its  cannibalism,’'  &c.‘ 

In  another  place  he  generalizes  this  loud  declamation  against  the  Spanish 
inquisition  by  unequivocally  ascribing  the  alleged  cruelties  of  that  tribunal 
to  the  doctrines  of  the  Catholic  Church.  Mark  the  spirit  which  breathes 
in  the  following  sweeping  assertion,  to  establish  the  truth  of  which  he 
refers  his  readers,  in  a  note,  to  his  History  of  Ferdinand  and  Isabella: 

But  it  should  be  remembered  that  religious  infidelity  at  this  period, 
and  till  a  much  later,  was  regarded — no  matter  whether  founded  on 
ignorance  or  education,  whether  hereditary  or  acquired,  heretical  or 
pagan  —  as  a  sin  to  be  punished  with  fire  and  faggot  in  this  world,  and 
eternal  suffering  in  the  next.  This  doctrine,  monstrous  as  it  is,  was  the 
creed  of  the  Romish  (!),  in  other  words,  of  the  Christian  Church,  —  the 
basis  of  the  inquisition,  and  of  those  other  species  of  religious  persecution, 
which  have  stained  the  annals,  at  one  time  or  other,  of  nearly  every 
nation  in  Christendom.”  ^ 

Such  assertions  deserve  no  comment,  except  that  of  just  indignation  or 
pity,  that  one  who  should  have  known  better,  has  thought  proper  thus  to 
travel  out  of  his  way,  and  to  abandon  the  legitimate  province  of  history, 
in  order  foully  to  asperse  the  religious  principles  of  the  oldest  and  most 
numerous  body  of  Christians  on  the  face  of  the  earth, — -of  a  body  which 
was  alone  for  fifteen  hundred  years  in  its  championship  of  Christianity, — 
of  a  body,  without  whose  advocacy  of  Christian  principles,  and  guardian¬ 
ship  of  the  Bible,  Mr.  Prescott  himself  would  not,  in  all  probability,  have 
at  this  day  the  little  religion  with  which  he  is  blessed.  What  had  the 
Spanish  inquisition  to  do  with  a  history  of  the  Spanish  conquest  ? 

But  the  inquisition  apart,  what  right  had  he  deliberately  to  charge  on 
the  Catholic  Church  the  practice  and  advocacy  of  idolatry  ?  Was  this, 
too,  necessary  to  the  integrity  of  his  History  ?  It  is  true  he  advances 
this  accusation  with  some  qualification  and  apparent  misgiving;  yet  he 
advances  it  plainly  enough.  Speaking  of  the  use,  by  Catholics,  of 
“material  representations  of  divinity,” — which,  by  the  way,  are  not  half 
so  common  among  Catholics,  as  he  would  seem  to  imagine, — he  says : 

“It  is  true,  such  representations  are  used  by  him  (the  Catholic)  only 
as  incentives,  not  as  the  objects  of  worship.  But  this  distinction  is  lost 
on  the  savage,  who  finds  such  forms  of  adoration  too  analogous  to  his 
own  to  impose  any  great  violence  on  his  feelings.  It  is  only  required  of 
him  to  transfer  his  homage  from  the  image  of  Quetzalcoatl,  the  benevolent 
deity  who  walked  among  .men,  to  that  of  the  Virgin  or  Redeemer  ;  from 
the  cross  which  he  has  Avorshiped  as  the  emblem  of  the  god  of  rain,  to 
the  same  cross,  the  symbol  of  salvation.”^ 

The  bigotry  of  this  passage  is  only  surpassed  by  its  absurdity.  Is  the 


1  Ibid.  pp.  83,  84. 


2  Vol.  ii,  p.  30. 


3  Vol.  i,  pp.  291,  293. 


CHARACTER  OF  THE  CONQUERORS. 


257 


Virgin,  is  the  cross  a  divinity  ?  Or  was  either  ever  held  as  such  by  any 
Catholic  that  ever  breathed  ?  And  so  the  poor  savages  could  not  be  taught 
the  distinction  between  stocks  and  stones,  and  the  Divinity  “who  dwelleth 
in  lio;ht  inaccessible!” 

It  would  seem,  in  fact,  that,  Mr.  Prescott’s  natural  acuteness  wholly 
abandons  him,  whenever  he  enters  on  the  hallowed  ground  of  religious 
discussion.  Once  he  has  set  his  foot  within  the  sanctuary,  he  plays  all 
mannner  of  fantastic  tricks,  among  which  casting  somersets  —  self- 
contradiction —  is  perhaps  the  most  conspicuous.*  Take  the  following 
passage  as  a  specimen  of  this  : 

“  It  was  not  difficult  to  pass  from  the  fasts  and  festiv^als  of  the  one 
religion  (the  Aztec),  to  the  fasts  and  festivals  of  the  other  (the  Chris¬ 
tian)  ;  to  transfer  their  homage  from  the  fantastic  idols  of  their  own 
creation,  to  the  beautiful  forms  in  sculpture  and  in  painting,  which 
decorated  the  Christian  cathedral.  It  is  true,  they  could  have  compre¬ 
hended  little  of  the  dogmas  of  their  new  faith,  and  little,  it  may  be,,  of  its 
vital  spirit.  But  if  the  philosopher  may  smile  at  the  reflection,  that 
conversion,  under  these  circumstances,  was  one  of  form  rather  than  of 
substance,  the  philanthropist  will  console  himself  by  considering  how 
much  the  cause  of  humanity  and  good  morals  must  have  gained  by  the 
substitution  of  these  unsullied  rites,  for  the  brutal  abominations  of  the 
Aztecs,”^ 

If  Mr,  Prescott’s  picture  of  the  conversion  of  the  Aztecs  be  faithful, 
— which  it  is  not, —  the  philosopher,  one  would  think,  should  rather 
weep  than  smile  over  its  sad  want  of  reality.  If,  however,  he  belong 
Co  the  school  of  Democritus,  rather  than  of  Heraclitus,  and  have  smiles 
to  throw  away,  he  might  bestow  one  of  the  merriest  on  Mr.  Prescott 
himself,  for  his  singular  consistency  in  styling  unsullied  tliose  rites  which 
he  had  just  before  said  were  sullied  with  the  grossest  and  most  stupid 
idolatry  ! 

But  the  most  singular  instance  of  the  bigotry  of  Mr.  Prescott  against 
every  thing  Catholic  is  yet  to  come.  Who  would  ever  have  thought  that 
the  Spanish  renegade  and  apostate,  the  notable  and  veracious  Blanco  White, 
—  whose  apostasy  was  so  amply  remunerated,  if  it  was  not  purchased  by 
British  gold, —  was  a  competent  authority  for  reference  in  the  history  of 
the  Conquest?  Yet  it  is  even  so.  Mr.  Prescott  —  the  smooth  and  retined 
Mr.  Prescott  —  actually  alleges  his  authority,  in  a  note,  to  confirm  or 
illustrate  the  following  precious  morceau  in  the  text: 

“But  the  doctrines  (of  Catholic  Christianity)  were  too  abstruse  to  be 
comprehended  at  a  glance  by  the  rude  intellect  of  a  barbarian.  And 
Montezuma  may  have,  perhaps,  thought  jt  was  not  more  monstrous  to  feed 
on  the  flesh  of  a  fellow-creature,  than  on  that  of  the  Creator  himself 

The  shocking  grossness  of  this  passage,  is  equaled  only  by  its  glaring 
impiety,  bordering  on  blasphemy,  and  by  the  lamentable  ignorance  it 

1  Vir.  Prescott  does  not  seem  to  admit  the  soundness  of  Petit  .lean’s  wise  niaxiin  iu  the  '‘Plaideurs” 
of  Kacine :  “0  dame!  On  ne  court  pas  deux  lievres  a  la  fois !”  In  the  historic  chase  he  often 
etarta  and  follows  two  or  more  hare.s  at  once!  Hence  liis  blunders  iitid  inconsistencies. 

2  Vol.  iii,  pp.  257,  25S.  3  Vol.  ii,  pp.  88,  and  note. 

2  A2 


20 


258 


Prescott’s  conquest  of  Mexico. 


displays.  It  is  worthy  of  those  carnal-minded  Jews  of  Capharnaum, 
who  asked :  How  can  this  man  give  us  his  flesh  to  eat?”*  And  so 
revolting  is  it,  in  fact,  that  it  has  drawn  down  upon  the  author’s  head  a 
severe  and  well  merited  rebuke  from  one  of  the  leadinsf  American  Reviews.^ 

We  might  present  many  more  extracts  breathing  a  similar  spirit ;  but 
what  we  have  already  furnished  will  suffice  for  tlie  present,  and  the 
subject  may  recur  in  the  sequel.  We  would  ask  whether  Mr.  Prescott, 
with  all  those  gross  and  bitter  prejudices,  could  have  entered  cordially 
into  the  feelings,  and  given  proper  explanations  of  the  motives  and  conduct 
of  men  whose  religion  he  so  cordially  hated  ?  Like  Diogenes,  trampling 
with  his  muddy  feet  the  costly  carpets  of  Plato,  he  rebukes,  with  still 
greater  bigotry,^  the  imputed  bigotry  of  the  Spaniards.  Yet  we  will  do 
him  the  justice  to  say  that  he  has  honestly  “  endeavoied  ”  to  paint 
correctly  the  Spanish  Conquest,  as  well  as  the  noble  heroism  of  the  men 
who  accomplished  it.  And,  considering  his  deep  religious  prejudices,  he 
has  succeeded  much  better  in  this  than  could  have  been  anticipated. 

Perhaps,  in  composing  his  history,  he  had  also  an  eye  to  business,  and 
cast  a  shrewd  glance  at  the  religious  atmosphere  breathed  by  those  for 
whom  it  was  written.  Perhaps,  too,  he  may  have  been  under  the  impres¬ 
sion  that  he  could  not  hope  to  reach  the  Elysium  of  popular  favor,  without 
first  casting  some  crusts  to  the  many-headed  Cerberus  of  religious  prejudice  ! 
Many  a  modern  writer  thinks  himself  compelled  to  pay  this  unworthy 
tribute  in  passing  —  shall  we  be  allowed  the  comparison,  made  with  all 
due  respect  to  old  Charon  and  to  printers’  devils  ?  —  the  Styx  of  the  press. 
When  will  this  unworthy  trembling  before  the  slightest  breath  of  the  aura 
popularis  cease  ?  When  will  authors  of  respectability  be  free  from  a 
thraldom  as  galling  as  it  is  degrading  ?  Will  the  Moloch  of  reli(»-ious 
bigotry  continue  to  prove  more  insatiable  than  was  even  the  war-god  of  the 
Aztecs,  fed  on  human  victims  ? 

But,  as  we  have  already  intimated,  in  spite  of  the  religious  prejudice 
which  so  strongly  swayed  the  bosom  of  Mr.  Prescott,  the  greatness  and 
magnificence  of  his  theme  inspired  him  and  carried  him  away.  Cold  and 
puritanical  as  his  soul  may  have  been,  it  could  not  resist  the  torrent  of 
■enthusiasm  which  bore  away  the  Conquerors  on  its  bosom,  any  more  than 
■  could  the  warlike  Aztecs  I'esist  their  strong  arms,  their  good  swords,  and 
•  their  iron  will.  Hence  he  kindles  with  his  subject,  enters  heartily  into  its 
stirring  scenes  and  startling  adventures,  shares  in  the  sufferings  and 
triumphs  of  the  Conquerors,  and,  bating  some  gross  insults  to  the  religion 
which  they  prized  more  dearly  than  life,  appreciates  their  lofty  motives, 
and  does  them  ample  justice. 

The  annals  of  mankind,  though  they  unfold  many  scenes  which  show 
“  how  thin  is  the  partition  that  divides  romance  from  reality,”  yet  tell  of 

1  St.  John  vi,  63 

2  The  Democratic  Review.  Feb’ry,  1844.  Article  on  “  Prescott’s  Conquest  of  Mexico.” 

3  The  incident  here  alluded  to  is  well  known.  Diogenes,  soiling  with  his  muddy  feet  the  carpet* 
of  Plato,  observed  with  a  sneer :  “  Calco  fastum  Platonis.^'  Plato  calmly  replied;  “At  tnajon 
4XStU  !  ” 


CHARACTER  OF  THE  CONQUERORS. 


259 


few  such  feats  as  the  Conquest  of  Mexico  by  the  Spaniards.  As  our 
historian  well  remarks  :  “  The  whole  story  has  the  air  of  fable  rather  than 
of  history  ;  a  legend  of  romance  —  a  tale  of  the  genii.”  ‘  He  thus  happily 
groups  together  the  principal  startling  incidents  of  which  it  is  made  up, 
when  viewed  merely  as  a  military  achievement : — 

“  That  a  handful  of  adventurers,  indifferently  armed  and  equipped, 
should  have  landed  on  the  shores  of  a  powerful  empire,  inhabited  by  a 
tierce  and  warlike  race,  and,  in  defiance  of  the  reiterated  prohibitions  of 
its  sovereign,  have  forced  their  way  into  the  interior  ;  —  that  they  should 
have  done  this,  without  knowledge  of  the  language  and  the  land,  without 
chart  or  compass  to  guide  them,  without  any  idea  of  the  difficulties  they 
were  to  encounter,  totally  uncertain  whether  the  next  step  might  bring 
them  on  a  hostile  nation  or  on  a  desert,  feeling  their  way  along  in  the  dark, 
as  it  were  ;  —  that,  though  nearly  overwhelmed  by  their  first  encounter 
with  the  inhabitants,  they  should  still  have  pressed  on  to  the  capital  of  the 
empire,  and,  having  reached  it,  thrown  themselves  unhesitatingly  into  the 
midst  of  their  enemies  ;  —  that,  so  far  from  being  daunted  by  the  extra¬ 
ordinary  spectacle  there  exliibited  of  power  and  civilization,  they  should 
have  been  but  the  more  confirmed  in  their  original  design  ;  —  that  they 
should  have  seized  the  monarch,  have  executed  his  ministers  before  the 
eyes  of  his  subjects,  and,  when  driven  forth  with  ruin  from  the  gates,  have 
gathered  their  scattered  wreck  together,  and,  after  a  system  of  operations, 
pursued  with  consummate  policy  and  daring,  have  succeeded  in  overturning 
the  capital,  and  establishing  their  sway  over  the  country  ;  that  all  this 
should  have  been  effected  by  a  mere  handful  of  indigent  adventurers,  is  a 
fact  little  short  of  the  miraculous, —  too  startling  for  the  probabilities 
demanded  by  fiction,  and  without  a  parallel  in  the  pages  of  history.”  ^ 

The  number  of  Spaniards,  who  marched  the  first  time  against  Mexico, 
fell  short  of  four  hundred.^  Accompanying  the  expedition  there  were 
about  six  thousand  Tlascalans,  and  a  few  Cempoallans ;  and  the  whole  force 
did  not  exceed  seven  thousand  men,  who  were  to  fight  against  and  to  con¬ 
quer  the  countless  myriads  of  Montezuma.  The  Spaniards  were  compelled 
to  fight  their  way  to  the  capital  inch  by  inch ;  and  they  had  first  to  subdue, 
before  they  could  avail  themselves  of  the  services  of,  the  intervening  warlike 
tribes.  Among  these,  the  most  formidable  were  the  ^erce  mountaineers  — 

the  Swiss  of  Anahuac,”  as  Mr.  Prescott  styles  them,  or  rather  the 
Spartans, —  the  brave  and  independent  Tlascalans  ;  first  the  most  deadly 
enemies,  and  then  the  most  steadfast  friends  of  the  Conquerors. 

With  this  mere  handful  of  ill-assorted  troops,  the  Spaniards  had  to 
encounter,  in  his  own  capital,  the  dread  Montezuma,  a  name  terrible 
throuorhout  Anahuac  —  a  name  which  could  summon  in  an  instant  millions 

O 

of  fierce  warriors,  prepared  to  do  battle  to  the  death  under  his  banner  ! 
They  had  to  plant  their  standard  in  the  very  heart  of  Tenochtitlan, —  “  the 
Venice  of  the  Aztecs  ;  ”  they  had  to  uphold  it  there,  against  the  myriads 
who,  lashed  into  a  wild  fury  by  the  battle  cry  of  their  great  war-god, 
rushed  to  the  onslaught,  and  made  almost  superhuman  efforts  to  pull  it 
down.  Cut  off  from  all  communication  with  tlie  main  land,  by  the 
surrounding  lakes  and  the  opened  sluices  of  the  dykes, —  hemmed  in  by 

1  Vol.  iii.  p.  215.  2  Ibid.,  pp.  221,  222. 


# 


3  Vol.  ii,  p.  69 


260 


Prescott’s  conquest  of  Mexico. 


the  hosts  who  were  fiercely  shouting  for  their  blood,  and  clamoring  for 
new' human  victims  for  their  terrible  Moloch,- — exhausted  with  fatigue, 
reeking  with  wounds,  and  almost  expiring  with  hunger ;  —  they  yet 
maintained  with  desperate  bravery  the  unequal  contest. 

Driven  from  the  capital  amid  the  unutterable  horrors  of  the  Noclie 
Triste,  they  gathered  together  the  miserable  wreck  of  their  former  army ; 
and,  after  fighting  their  way  back  to  the  coast,  contending  at  every  step 
with  hunger,  with  thirst,  with  snares  laid  for  their  destruction,  with 
hostile  armies  sent  out  to  cut  off  their  retreat,  doomed  to  destruction, 
though  “  fated  not  to  die  ;  ”  they  again,  in  nothing  dismayed  by  their 
past  sufferings,  fought  their  way  back  to  the  capital,  unmindful  of  danger, 
and  regardless  of  the  awful  death  on  the  fatal  stone  of  sacrifice  ;  —  a  doom 
which  stared  them  in  the  face,  and  which  had  already  fallen  to  the  lot  of 
many  among  their  comrades. 

Montezuma  was  no  more  ;  but  a  greater  than  Montezuma  now  sat  on 
the  imperial  throne  of  the  Aztecs.  Young,  active,  persevering,  fertile  in 
resources,  and  determined  rather  to  die  with  his  people  than  to  submit  to 
the  Spanish  yoke,  Guatamozin  —  the  last  of  the  Aztecs  —  was  prepared 
to  defend  his  capital  to  the  last  extremity  ;  and  his  people,  to  a  man, 
shared  in  the  determination  of  their  youthful  sovereign.  The  superstitious 
awe  which  had  seized  them  on  the  first  appearance  of  the  Spaniards,  had 
now  yielded  to  a  deadly  hatred  of  men,  whose  past  reverses  had  proved 
them  equally  mortal  with  themselves.  Now  came  the  deadly  strife,  the 
fiei  *ce  tug  of  war. 

The  result  is  known,  and  the  story  is  soon  told.  After  feats  of  daring 
and  bravery  which  only  Spanish  chivalry  could  achieve, —  after  a  siege, 
perhaps  the  most  memorable  in  the  annals  of  history, —  after  a  series  of 
desperate  assaults,  and  equally  desperate  defenses,  almost  without  a 
parallel, —  the  iron  purpose  of  the  Spaniards  won  the  day,  and  the  banner 
of  Castile  floated  in  ti-iumph  from  the  loftiest  pinnacle  of  the  great  temple 
of  Tenochtitlan.  But  it  floated  over  a  city  laid  in  ruins,  and  reeking  with 
the  blood  of  the  slaip.  The  Aztecs  would  have  it  so  :  they  had  fiercely 
resisted  every  offer  of  capitulation ;  they  had  determined  to  bury  them¬ 
selves  under  the  ruins  gf  their  capital!  Thus  fell  the  proud  “Venice  of 
the  Aztecs.”  But  two  years  had  elapsed  since  the  Spaniards  began  their 
first  march  to  Mexico,  and  already  they  had  subdued  an  immense  empire. 

However  the  hearts  of  the  Conquerors  may  have  *bled  over  the  ruined 
palaces  and  fallen  turrets  of  the  capital ;  however  they  may  have  sympa¬ 
thized  with  the  appalling  sufferings  of  its  people,  yet  the  iron  fate  of  war 
left  them  no  alternative.  The  Conquest,  through  the  desperate  resistance 
of  the  Aztecs,  could  have  been  effected  with  no  less  disastrous  results. 
The  city,  however,  rose  speedily  from  its  ruins  ;  the  Spaniards  soon  made 
it  more  beautiful  and  magnificent  than  ever,  and  they  substituted  the 
Christian  church  for  the  odious  and  blood-stained  Teocalli ;  the  cross  for 
the  gory  statue  of  the  war-god  ;  and  the  pure  and  unbloody  sacrifice  of 
Christianity  for  the  horrible  human  sacrifices  of  the  Aztec  superstition. 


CHARACTER  OF  THE  CONQUERORS. 


2(31 


Thus,  by  almost  supernatural  exertions  and  sacrifices,  was  a  vast  barbaric 
empire  subdued,  and  reclaimed  to  Christian  civilization. 

The  actors  in  the  stirring  scenes  of  this  great  drama  were  men  of  iron 
nerve  and  chivalrous  daring.  They  all  achieved  feats  of  almost  superhuman 
strength,  and  won  imperishable  laurels  in  this  contest.  From  the  common 
soldier,  old  Bernal  Diaz, —  who,  to  hear  his  own  account,  was  one  of  the 
prime  movers  in  every  leading  enterprise, —  up  to  the  great  Captain  himself, 
all  distinguished  themselves  by  a  perseverance  and  a  patient  endurance 
of  toil  and  suffering,  which  would  have  done  honor  to  the  Spartans  of 
Leonidas,  or  to  the  legions  of  Caesar. 

Among  the  leaders,  there  was  Gonzalo  de  Sandoval,  the  brilliant,  the 
bold,  the  daring,  the  successful,  the  darling  of  the  army  and  of  his 
general,  the  soul  of  chivalry, —  the  Tancred  of  the  expedition.  There  was 
the  equally  brave,  though  less  amiable  and  scrupulous  Alvarado,  the 
future  conqueror  of  Guatemala,  the  Tonatiuh,  or  “  child  of  the  sun,”  of 
the  Aztecs, —  the  Bohemond  of  the  Conquest.  But  peering  far  above 
them  all,  a  pyramid  of  strength,  stands  forth  the  colossal  character  of 
Hernando  Cortes, —  the  Godfrey  de  Bouillon  of  the  Conquest.  He  was 
the  very  man  for  the  emergency.  He  was  the  body  as  well  as  the  soul 
of  the  enterprise:  it  was  his  work,  in  its  inception,  in  its  progress,  in  its 
termination.  His  genius  originated  it,  created  the  means  by  which  it 
might  be  accomplished,  not  only  overcame,  but  turned  to  account,  the 
seemingly  insuperable  obstacles  which  interposed,  watched  over  it  in 
every  trying  stage  of  its  progress,  and  finally  brought  it  to  a  glorious 
consummation.  Few  men,  whether  in  ancient  or  modern  times,  ever 
contended  with  more  difficulties,  endured  more  hardships,  were  more 
fertile  in  expedients,  or  triumphed  with  means  so  slender  and  inadequate. 

Once  he  had  landed  in  Mexico,  and  conceived  the  idea  of  conquering 
the  empii-e,  he  burnt  his  fleet ;  thus  cutting  off  all  hope  of  retreat,  and 
leaving  his  men  no  alternative  but  to  conqueror  to  die.  He  then  buckled 
on  his  good  sword,  and  with  his  little  army  followed  fearlessly  the  banner 
of  the  Cross,  which  he  had  resolved  to  plant  on  the  loftiest  pinnacle  of  the 
city  of  Montezuma.  On,  on,  with  the  battle  cry  of  “  God  and  St.  lago!  ’’ 
No  dangers  appal,  no  difficulties  discourage  him.  Labor,  and  toil,  and 
hardships,  and  reverses,  are  his  daily  bread :  his  soul  rises  with  obstacles, 
as  the  ship  rises  with  the  waves.  A  child  of  fortune,  he  seems  to  rise 
superior  to  fortune ;  or  rather,  his  genius  transmutes  misfortunes  into 
brilliant  success. 

When,  after  incredible  toil  and  hazard,  he  has  the  golden  prize  already 
in  his  grasp,  and  reposes  quietl}’'  in  the  capital  of  Montezuma,  he  learns 
that  Narvaez  liad  been  sent  with  a  formidable  force  to  supersede  him  in 
the  command.  Not  a  moment  is  lost.  He  marclies  with  electric  rapidity 
to  meet  his  rival,  surprises  him  in  his  camp,  defeats  his  fresh  and  regular 
troops  with  one-fourth  of  their  number,  and,  almost  witliout  a  struggle, 
takes  them  prisoners,  wins  their  affections,  incorporates  them  witli  his  own 
army,  and  thereby  doubles  his  own  effective  force.  He  finds  that  he 


262  pkescott’s  conquest  op  Mexico. 


cannot  hope  to  take  the  capital,  without  a  fleet  to  command  the  surrounding 
lakes ;  and  his  genius  creates  a  fleet,  and  has  it  transported  across  the 
mountains  on  the  shoulders  of  his  men. 

Olid,  a  subordinate  chieftain  rebels  :  Cortes  leaves  all  his  Mexican 
laurels  behind  him,  and  to  chastise  him,  marches  three  thousand  miles 
through  the  unexplored  wilderness  of  Chiapa, —  through  wood  and  marsh, 
over  lake  and  river  ;  making  every  obstacle  bend  to  his  iron  will,  checking 
the 'rising  disaffection  of  his  troops,  reviving  their  drooping  spirits,  himself 
leading  the  way  in  every  toil  and  hardship  :  nor  does  he  give  over  the 
seemingly  hopeless  enterprise,  but  boldly  pushes  on,  till  he  has  attained 
his  object.  Perhaps,  in  all  the  annals  of  mankind,  there  is  not  to  be  found 
a  parallel  to  this  dreadful  ’  march  to  Honduras.  It  cost  the  great 
Conqueror  nearly  as  much  time,  and  perhaps  more  hardship  and  danger, 
than ‘the  Conquest  of  the  Mexican  empire  itself. 

'  In  one  word,  Cortes  was  ready  to  undertake  anything  and  everything  ; 
and  he  seldom  failed  to  accomplish  whatever  he  undertook.  He  had  the 
intuition  of  genius  ;  his  mind  took  in  at  a  glance  all  the  incidents  and 
bearings  of  an  enterprise,  no  matter  how  difficult  or  complicated  it  might 
appear.' 

We  know  of  no  exact  parallel  to  his  character,  but  he  possessed  traits  in 
common  with  many  great  generals  of  antiquity.  He  moved  and  conquered 
with  the  electric  rapidity  of  Pyrrhus,  but  he  was  more  successful  :  ho. 
Subdued  a  more  warlike  empire  than  Alexander,  but  he  did  not,  like  him, 
subsequently  waste  his  energies  in  debauch  :  he  had  the  courage,  skill,- 
and  indomitable  energy  of  Scipio  Africanus,  and,  like  him,  he  destroyed  a 
great  capital ;  - —  but,  unlike  Scipio,  he  caused  this  capital  to  rise  again 
from  its  ashes  more  splendid  than  ever.  He  conquered  with  Csesar,  and 
with  him,  “he  wrote  his  own  commentaries,”  ^  almost  amidst  the  stirring 
scenes  of  the  battle-field  itself.  He  had  the  iron  nerve  and  the  fertile 
invention  of  Hannibal,  and  the  same  unconquerable  energy  in  encountering 
difficulties  ;  but  he  was  much  more  fortunate  than  Hannibal.  And  it  is 
remarkable  that  old  Bernal  Diaz  compares  him  to  the  two  generals  last 
named  : 

“  He  preferred  to  be  called  ‘  Cortes’  by  us,  to  being  called  by  any  title; 
and  with  good  reason,  for  the  name  of  Cortes  is  as  famous  in  our  day,  as 
was  that  of  Ceesar  among  the  Romans,  or  of  Hannibal  among  the 
Carthao;enians.”  ^ 

We  regret  that  our  limits  will  not  allow  of  copious  extracts  from  'the 
History  of  the  Conquest,  setting  forth  the  character  of  Cortes,  to  which 
Mr.  Prescott  does  as  ample  justice  as  his  religious  prejudices  would 
possibly  permit.  We  can  make  room  for  but  one  or  two  : 

“  Indeed,  the  history  of  the  Conquest,  as  I  have  already  had  occasion 

1  01(1  Beriial  Liaz  ni.akes  the  following  naive  !uul  pious  reflection  on  the  exploits  of  the  Con¬ 
querors ;  ••and,  a.sl  ponder  on  exphdM.  I  feel  that  it  was  not  of  ourselves  that  we  performed 
them,  but  that  it  was  the  prfxidenee  of  God  which  guided  us.  Much  food  is  there  here  for 
meditation  !”  — a;?.  Prtsc.  ii.  178. 

2  Cf.  Prescott,  lii,  3o2. 


3  Apud  eundeni,  hi,  3oG. 


CHARACTER  OF  THE  CONQUERORS. 


263 


to  remark,  is  necessarily  that  of  Cortes,  who  is,  if  I  may  so  say,  not 
merely  the  soul,  but  the  body  of  the  enterprise, —  present  everywhere  in 
person,  in  the  thick  of  the  fight,  or  in  the  building  of  the  works,  with  Ids 
sword  or  with  his  musket,  sometimes  leading  his  soldiers,  and  sometimes 
directing  his  little  navy.  The  negotiations,  intrigues,  correspondence,  are 
all  conducted  by  him ;  and,  like  Ccesar,  he  wrote  his  own  commentaries 
in  the  heat  of  the  stirring  scenes  which  form  the  subject  of  them.”' 

“  He  was  a  knight  errant  in  the  literal  sense  of  the  word.  Of  all  the 
band  of  adventurous  cavaliers,  whom  Spain,  in  the  sixteenth  century,  sent 
forth  on  the  career  of  discovery  and  conquest,  there  was  none  more  deeply 
filled  with  the  spirit  of  romantic  enterprise  than  Hernando  Cortes. 
Dangers  and  difficulties,  instead  of  deterring,  seemed  to  have  a  charm  in 
his  eyes.  They  were  necessary  to  rouse  him  to  a  full  consciousness  of  his 
powers.  He  grappled  with  them,  at  the  outset,  and,  if  I  may  so  express 
myself,  seemed  to  prefer  to  take  his  enterprises  by  the  most  difficult  side  ! 
He  conceived,  at  the  first  moment  of  his  landing  in  [doubtful)  the 

design  of  its  conquest.  When  he  saw  the  strength  of  its  civilization,  he 
was  not  turned  from  his  purpose.  When  he  was  assailed  by  the  superior 
force  of  Narvaez,  he  still  persisted  in  it;  and,  wlien  he  was  driven  in  ruin 
from  the  capital,  he  still  chei-ished  his  original  idea.  How  successfully 
be  carried  it  into  execution,  we  have  seen.  After  the  few  years  of  repose 
which  succeeded  the  Conquest,  his  adventurous  spirit  impelled  him  to 
that  dreary  march  across  the  marshes  of  Chiapa  ;  and,  after  another 
interval,  to  seek  his  fortunes  on  the  stormy  Californian  gulf.  When  he 
found  that  no  other  continent  remained  for  him  to  conquer,  he  made 
serious  proposals  to  the  emperor  to  equip  a  fleet  at  his  own  expense,  with 
which  he  would  sail  to  the  Moluccas,  and  subdue  the  spice  islands  for  the 
crown  of  Castile !  ”  ^ 

A  convincing  proof  of  the  great  interest  which  attaches  to  the  personal 
history  of  Cortes,  and  an  evidence,  too,  of  the  skill  of  Mr.  Prescott  as  a 
historian,  is  found  in  the  fact,  that  his  work  loses  none  of  its  attractiveness, 
after  the  description  of  the  final  siege  and  fall  of  Mexico.  The  brilliant 
De  Solis  had  closed  his  History  of  the  Conquest  with  this  last  scene  of  the 
great  drama ;  but  Mr.  Prescott,  at  the  liazard  of  not  sustaining  his 
narrative,  continues  it  after  this  event,  and  unfolds  the  various  startling 
vicissitudes  in  the  subsequent  career  of  Cortes.  And  never  was  a  biog¬ 
raphy  more  interesting,  both  in  itself  and  in  the  manner  in  which  it  is 
treated.  Few  readers  who  have  gone  as  far  as  the  fall  of  Mexico,  will 
refuse  to  accompany  the  author  to  the  close  of  his  volume  ;  and  many 
even  will  read  with  pleasure  the  valuable  papers  in  tlie  Appendix. 

We  cannot  close  this  notice  without  attempting  briefly  to  answer  two 
questions,  which  have  been  often  asked  respecting  the  Conquest  of  Mexico  : 

*  1.  Was  the  Conquest  justifiable  ? 

2.  Was  it  stained  with  unnecessary  and  wanton  cruelty  by  the  Spanish 
Conquerors  ? 

1.  The  principles  by  which  we  judge,  in  the  abstract,  of  the  right  of 
conquest,  are  very  abstruse  and  difficult  to  be  ascertained  with  certainty. 
They  lie  back  in  the  very  foundations  of  society,  and  constitute  the  most 
delicate  and  difficult  portions  of  international  jurisprudence.  Conquerors^ 

2  Ibid.  353,  354. 


1  Ibid.  352. 


264  Prescott’s  conquest  of  Mexico. 

seldom  reason ;  they  act.  They  come  up  to  Shell’s  definition  of  an 
Irishman  :  “  they  act  first,  and  think  afterwards.”  Might  and  right  are 
not  synonymous  terms;  but  they  have  been  too  often  viewed  as  such 
in  the  annals  of  conquest.  We  recollect  once  to  have  read  on  the  barrel 
of  a  cannon  the  significant  inscription:  ultima  ratio  regum,  —  the  last 
reason  of  kings.  This  saying  is  perhaps  still  more  true  of  conquerors 
than  of  kings. 

The  right  of  conquest  involves  a  number  of  very  complicated  questions; 
and  the  slightest  circumstance  may  change  a  whole  case.  Hence,  perhaps, 
the  best  method  of  deciding  the  question,  whether  the  Spanish  Conquest 
was  justifiable,  will  be  to  present  a  succinct  statement  of  the  facts  bearing 
on  the  case,  with  such  reflections  interspersed,  as  the  facts  may  themselves 
suggest  or  warrant.  We  will  adopt  this  method,  and  will  state  nothing, 
which  is  not  undoubted,  and  for  which  we  will  not  have  the  authority  of 
Mr.  Prescott  himself ;  though  we  shall  be  compelled  to  controvert  some  of 
his  positions.  And,  unless  we  are  greatly  mistaken,  it  will  clearly  appear 
from  the  train  of  our  remarks,  that,  if  ever  a  conquest  was  justifiable,  that 
of  Mexico  by  the  Spaniards  was  so. 

Before  the  expedition  of  Cortes,  the  enterprise  of  the  Spaniards  had 
already  discovered  the  continent  bordering  on  the  gulf  of  Mexico,  and  it 
had  been  visited  by  two  other  adventurers,  Cordova  and  Grijalva  : 

“Under  this  chivalrous  spirit  of  enterprise,  the  progress  of  discovery 
had  extended,  by  the  beginning  of  Charles  the  Fifth’s  reign,  from  the  bay 
of  Honduras,  along  the  winding  shores  of  Darien,  and  the  South  American 
continent,  to  the  Rio  de  la  Plata.  The  miglity  barrier  of  the  isthmus  had 
been  climbed,  and  the  Pacific  descried  by  Niifiez  de  Balboa;  second  only  to 
Columbus  in  this  valiant  band  of  ‘  ocean  chivalry.’  ”* 

Grijalva  had  not  returned  ;  but  Cordova  had,  by  his  glowing  accounts, 
quickened  the  zeal,  and  stimulated  the  enterprise  of  Velasquez,  the  gov¬ 
ernor  of  Cuba.  The  latter  accordingly  fitted  out  an  expedition,  at  the  head 
of  which  he  placed  Hernando  Cortes.  The  objects  of  this  entei'prise  were: 
to  find  Grijalva ;  to  rescue  six  Christians  whom  Cordova  had  reported  as 
lingering  in  captivity  in  Yucatan  ;  and  lastly  and  chiefly,  to  extend  the 
Spanish  commerce  with  the  natives.  In  the  instructions  given  to  Cories, 
no  allusion  is  made  to  a  conquest  of  the  country,  properly  so  called  : 

“But  the  great  object  of  the  expedition  was  barter  with  the  natives.  In 
pursuing  this,  special  care  was  to  be  taken  that  they  should  receive  no 
wrong,  but  be  treated  with  kindness  and  humanity,  Cortes  was  to  bear 
in  mind,  above  all  things,  that  the  object  which  the  Spanish  monarch  had 
most  at  heart  was  the  conversion  of  the  Indians.  He  was  to  impress  on 
them  the  gi-andeur  and  goodness  of  his  roval  master,  to  invite  them  ‘  to  i>'ive 
in  their  allegiance  to  him,  and  to  manifest  it  by  regaling  him  with  such 
•comfortable  presents  of  gold,  pearls  and  precious  stones,  as,  by  showing 
their  own  good  will,  would  secure  his  favor  and  protection.’  He  Avas  to 
make  an  accurate  survey  of  the  coast,  sounding  its  bays  and  inlets  for  the 
benefit  of  future  navigators.  He  was  to  acquaint  himself  with  the  natural 
products  of  the  country,”^  Ac, 


1  Vol.  i,  p.  ‘217. 


2  ILid.  248—9. 


CHARACTER  OF  THE  CONQUERORS. 


265 


The  author  adds,  that  tlie  general  tenor  of  the  instructions  given  to 
Cortes  “  must  be  admitted  to  provide  for  the  interests  of  science  and 
humanity,  as  well  as  for  those  wliich  had  "oference  only  to  a  commercial 
speculation.”* 

Armed  with  these  humane  and  pacific  instructions,  Cortes  landed  in 
Mexico:  nor  did  he  violate  either  the  spirit  or  the  letter  of  them,  until 
compelled  to  do  so  by  the  indomitable  hostility  of  the  Indians.  They,  and 
not  he,  struck  the  first  blow ;  and  his  appeal  to  arms  was  a  necessary 
measure  of  self-defense.  The  first  battle  occurred  at  Tobasco;  and  Mr. 
Prescott  speaks  of  the  conduct  of  Cortes  as  follows : 

“Before  commencinof  hostilities,  that  ‘he  mii^ht  act  with  entire  regfard 
to  justice,  and  in  obedience  to  the  instructions  of  the  royal  council,^  he  first 
caused  proclamation  to  be  made  through  the  interpreter,  that  he  desired 
only  a  free  passage  for  Ins  men  ;  and  that  he  proposed  to  revive  the  friendly 
relations  which  had  formerly  subsisted  between  his  countrymen  and  the 
natives.  He  assured  them  that  if  blood  were  spilt,  the  sin  would  lie  on 
their  heads  and  tliat  resistance  would  be  useless,  since  he  was  resolved  at 
all  hazards  to  take  up  his  quarters  that  night  in  the  town  of  Tobasco.”^ 

This  proclamation  was  received  by  the  Indians,  “  with  shouts  of  defiance 
and  a  shower  of  arrows.”^  This  was  a  usual  mode  of  procedure  with 
Cortes,  who  was,  in  no  instance,  the  aggressor ;  — at  least  on  his  first  march 
to  Mexico,  and  until  he  had  been  hopelessly  committed  in  the  war  of  the 
Conquest.  Thus,  ere  he  encountered  the  fierce  Tlascalans, 

“  Cortes,  when  he  had  come  within  hearing,  ordered  the  interpreter  to 
proclaim  that  he  had  no  hostile  intentions,  but  wished  to  be  allowed  a 
passage  through  their  country,  which  he  had  entered  as  a  friend.  This 
declaration  he  commanded  the  royal  notary,  Godey,  to  record  on  the  spot, 
that  if  blood  were  shed  it  might  not  be  charged  on  the  Spaniards.”^ 

At  Cempoalla,  the  capital  of  the  Totonacs,  he  liad  already  heard  of  the 
tyranny  of  Montezuma,  and  of  the  horrid  human  sacrifices  practiced  by 
the  Aztecs.  The  Cempoallan  cazique  had  told  him,  that  Montezuma  was 
“a  stern  prince,  merciless  in  his  exactions,  and,  in  case  of  resistance,  or 
any  offense,  sure  to  wreak  his  vengeance  by  carrying  off  their  young  men 
and  maidens  to  be  sacrificed  to  his  deities.  Cortes  assured  him,  that  he 
would  never  consent  to  such  enormities ;  he  had  been  sent  by  his  sovereign 
to  redress  abuses  and  to  punish  the  oppressor  ;  and  if  the  Totanacs  would 
be  true  to  him,  he  would  enable  them  to  throw  oft’  the  detested  yoke  of  the 
Aztecs.”^  He  had  already  assured  the  cazique  “that  he  had  come  to  the 
Aztec  shores  to  abolish  the  inhuman  worship  which  prevailed  there,  and 
to  introduce  the  knowledge  of  the  true  God.”® 

The  more  nearly  the  Spaniards  approached  the  capital,  the  more  were 
their  souls  harrowed  by  the  spectacles  which  everywhere  met  their  eyes, 
revealing  both  the  execrable  tyranny  of  Montezuma,  and  the  awful  extent 
to  which  was  carried  the  practice  of  human  sacrifices  among  the  Aztecs. 
In  one  place  —  called  Cocotlan  by  Bernal  Diaz  —  “there  were  thirteen 
teo  callis  (temples);  .  .  .  and  in  the  suburbs  they  had  seen  a  receptacle, 

1  Vol  i.p  ‘24S-9.  2  Ibid  p  278  3  Ibid. 

4  Ibid,  p  426.  6  Ibid,  p  346.  6  Ibid.  p.  445. 

2B 


266  Prescott’s  conquest  of  Mexico. 


in  which,  according  to  Bernal  Diaz,  were  stored  a  hundred  thousand  skulls 
of  human  victims,  all  piled  and  ranged  in  order  !  He  reports  the  number 
as  ascertained  by  counting  them  himself.”*  The  author  adds  :  “  The 
Spaniards  were  destined  to  become  familiar  with  this  appalling  spectacle 
as  they  approached  nearer  to  the  Aztec  capital.”^ 

These  human  sacrifices,  of  which  many  among  the  Spaniards  themselves 
were  destined  subsequently  to  become  the  victims,^  had  been  long  carried 
to  a  frightful  extent  in  Anahuac.  It  was  an  essential  part  of  the  Aztec 
religion,  and  was  yearly  on  the  increase.  On  this  subject  Mr.  Prescott 
says : 

“  The  amount  of  victims  immolated  on  its  accursed  altars  would 
stagger  the  faith  of  the  least  scrupulous  believer.  Scarcely  any  author 
pretends  to  estimate  the  yearly  sacrifice  throughout  the  empire  at  less 
than  twenty  thousand,  and  some  carry  the  number  as  high  as  fifty. 
On  great  occasions,  as  the  coronation  of  a  king,  or  the  consecration  of 
a  temple,  the  number  becomes  still  more  appalling.  At  the  dedication 
of  the  great  temple  of  Huitzilopotchli,  in  1486,  tlie  prisoners,  who  for 
some  years  had  been  reserved  for  tlie  purpose,  were  drawn  from  all 
quarters  of  the  capital.  They  were  ranged  in  files,  forming  a  procession 
nearly  two  miles  long.  The  ceremony  consumed  several  days,  and 
seventy  thousand  captives  are  said  to  have  perished  at  the  shrine  of  this 
terrible  deity 

“  One  fact  may  be  considered  certain.  It  was  customary  to  preserve 
the  skulls  of  the  sacrificed,  in  buildings  appropriated  to  the  purpose. 
The  companions  of  Cortes  counted  one  hundred  and  thirty-six  thousand 
in  one  of  these  edifices.  .  .  .  Indeed  the  great  object  of  war  with  the 
Aztecs  was  quite  as  much  to  gather  victims  for  their  sacrifices,  as  to 
extend  their  empire.  Hence  it  was  that  an  enemy  was  never  slain  in 
battle,  if  there  were  a  chance  to  take  him  alive.  To  this  circumstance 
the  Spaniards  repeatedly  owed  their  own  preservation.  When  Mon¬ 
tezuma  was  asked,  ‘  why  he  had  sufifered  the  republic  of  Tlascala  to 
maintain  her  independence  on  his  borders,’  he  replied,  ‘  that  she  might 
furnish  him  with  victims  for  his  gods.’ 

Such  then  was  the  tyranny,  and  sucli  were  the  horrible  abominations 
prevalent  among  the  Aztecs  !  Could  the  Spaniards,  could  Cortes  look  on 
those  scenes  unmoved  ?  Could  he,  as  a  Spanish  chevalier  of  lofty  bearing, 
leave  all  those  wrongs  unredressed  ?  Could  he  resist  the  cry  of  the  fet¬ 
tered  slave  who  implored  his  aid  in  breaking  his  bonds,  and  asserting  his 
freedom  from  an  odious  tyranny  wliich  was  crushing  him  in  the  dust  ? 
Could  he,  as  a  knight  of  the  cross,  suffer  the  temples  any  longer  to  be 
besmeared  with  human  gore,  or  the  smoke  of  the  horrid  sacrifice  any  longer 
to  ascend  from  wreaking  human  victims  ?  Could  he,  when  he  had  the 
power  to  prevent  it,  permit  the  most  sacred  laws  of  society  and  of  humanity 
to  be  thus  openly  and  frightfully  trampled  on,  under  his  very  eyes?  Could 

1  Ibid.  p.  899.  2  Ibid.  pp.  399—400 

3  See  Prescott,  volume  iii,  pp.  152 — 3,  for  a  graphic  de.scrlption  of  tlie  dreadful  sacrifice  of  the 
Spaniards  on  the-summit  of  the  great  teocalli  of  Mexico.  4.  Introduction,  pp  79,  80 

5  Ibid.  pp. 81  —  2.  i'or  a  lively  picture  of  the  manner  iu  which  the  revoking  sacrifice  was  per¬ 
formed.  see  ibid.  p.  75,  et.  seq.  For  the  appalling  spectade  which  met  the  e\es  of  die  Conquerors 
when  they  first  visited  the  Aztec  temples  of  Mexico,  see  Vol  ii.  p  152  Old  fii-rnal  Diaz  testifies  that 
those  “hells”  smelled  more  strongly  than  the  worst  charnel  hou.-es  of  Castile. 


CHARACTER  OF  THE  CONQUERORS.  267 

he,  ill  one  word,  as  a  true  knight,  sworn  to  redress  grievances,  to  protect 
the  weak,  and  to  assert  the  riglit,  do  otherwise  than  he  actually  did  ? 

He  liad  come  to  Mexico  with  pacific  intentions  ;  he  had  not  been  the 
aggressor ;  he  was  drawn,  into  the  war  against  his  own  will ;  by  circum¬ 
stances  beyond  his  control,  he  was  subsequently  hurried  into  it  more  and 
more  deeply  :  at  every  step  of  his  progress,  he  saw  new  grievances  to 
redress,  new  abominations  to  suppress ;  the  oppressed  nations  of  Anahuac 
loudly  called  on  him  for  protection  against  an  inhuman  despot,  who  was 
grinding  them  down  with  exactions,  and  snatching  awa3%  for  the  horrid 
sacrifice,  their  sons  and  their  daufjhters  :  in  the  midst  of  all  these  stirring^ 
scenes,  the  hearts  of  both  himself  and  his  companions  in  arms,  beat  high 
with  the  chivalrous  feelings  which  had  lingered  longer  in  Spain  than  in 
any  other  country  :  —  could  he,  we  repeat  it,  under  all  these  circumstances, 
have  acted  otherwise  than  he  did  ? 

Was  he,  in  the  first  moment  of  danger,  through  an  over-nice  point  of 
honor,  or  a  too  delicate  sense  of  the  Aztec  rights,  to  turn  his  back  on  men, 
who  themselves  respected  the  rights  of  neither  God  nor  man;  —  insulting 
the  former  with  human  sacrifices,  and  trampling  systematically  on  the 
the  dearest  rights  of  the  latter  ?  Had  he  thus  ingloriously  fled,  he  would 
not  have  been  a  true  Castilian  chevalier,  nor  a  faithful  knight  of  the  cross. 
But  Providence  had  entrusted  to  him  a  higher  mission,  and  well  and  truly 
did  he  fulfill  it.  Wherever  his  arms  were  victorious,  the  fetters  of  the 
crouching  slave  were  stricken  off,  and  the  trembling  captive,  reserved  for 
the  sacrifice,  escaped  from  his  horrid  cage.’  Whithersoever  he  went,  he 
was  the  protector  of  the  weak,  and  the  scourge  of  the  oppressor.  Nor  did 
he  desist,  until  the  throne  of  the  haughty  Aztec  was  laid  low  ;  until 
his  temples  were  purified  from  the  abominations  of  human  victims,  and 
dedicated  to  the  true  God  in  a  purer  worship. 

According  to  the  principles  of  natural  reason,  and  the  authority  of  Mon¬ 
tesquieu,  Grotius,  Putfendorf,  and  most  writers  on  international  law,  human 
sacrifices  alone,  genei-ally  practised  among  a  people,  would  justify  their 
subjugation  by  another,  in  case  they  would  not  consent,  on  being  properly 
appealed  to,  to  abolish  of  themseh^es  the  abominable  custom.  If  war  may 
be  lawfully  declared  for  the  flagrant  violations  of  the  rights  of  property, 
is  it  not,  a  fortiori,  lawful,  when  it  is  waged  to  protect  from  the  most 
barbarous  death  hundreds  of  thousands  of  human  beings  ?  If  b}"  the 
universally  received  principles  of  international  law,  war  may  be  declared  to 
abolish  the  slave  trade,  can  it  not,  a  fortiori,  be  declared  for  the  object  just 
referred  to?  Mr.  Prescott,  in  fiict,  does  not  dissent  from  these  views, 
however  he  may  seek  to  conceal  or  to  qualify  his  opinion.  Take  this 
passage  as  an  evidence;  he  is  speaking  of  the  Aztec  sacrifices: 

“Men  became  familiar  with  scenes  of  horror  and  the  most  loathsome 
abominations.  Women  and  children  —  the  whole  nation  became  familiar 
with,  and  assisted  at  them.  The  heart  was  hardened,  the  manners  were 
made  ferocious,  the  feeble  light  of  civilization,  transmitted  from  a  milder 


1  Cf.  I'rescott,  vol.  ii,  p  38.  • 


268  Prescott's  conquest  of  Mexico. 

( 

race,  was  growing  fainter  and  fainter,  as  thousands  and  thousands  of  mis¬ 
erable  victims,  throughout  the  empire  were  yearly  fattened  in  its  cages, 
sacrificed  on  its  altars,  dressed  and  served  ai  its  banquets  !  The  whole 
land  was  converted  into  a  vast  human  shambles  1  The  empire  of  the 
Aztecs  did  not  fall  before  its  time  !”* 

Then  follows  this  singular  passage: 

“  Whether  these  unparalleled  outrages  furnish  a  sufficient  plea  to  the 
Spaniards  for  their  invasion,  whether  with  the  Protestant,  we  are  content 
to  find  a  reward  for  it  in  the  natural  rights  and  demands  of  civilization,  or, 
with  the  Roman  Catholic,  in  the  good  pleasure  of  the  Pope(!) — on  the 
one  or  the  other  of  which  grounds,  the  conquests  by  most  Christian 
nations  in  the  east  and  west  have  been  defended — it  is  unnecessary  to 
discuss,  as  it  has  already  been  considered  in  a  former  chapter.”^ 

One  would  have  thought,  had  not  Mr.  Prescott  intimated  the  contrary, 
that  Protestants  had  not  monopolized  all  the  common  sense  of  the  world ; 
and  that  Roman  Catholics  could  claim  an  equal  right  with  them  to  defend 
their  conquests  by  an  appeal  “to  the  natural  rights  and  demands  of  civili¬ 
zation.”  We  boldly  deny  the  truth  of  the  assertion,  that  any  Catholic 
power  ever  rested  the  defense  of  its  conquests,  “in  the  good  pleasure  of 
the  Pope  and  the  authorities  to  which  Mr.  Prescott  refers  for  proof  of 
this,  “in  a  former  chapter,”, do  not  establish  it,  any  more  than  along  note 
appended  to  the  present  one,  establishes  the  immaculateness  of  the  Puritans 
who  colonized  New  England. 

This  will  clearly  appear  from  a  very  brief  examination  of  Mr.  Prescott’s 
curious  opinion,  on  the  theory  of  the  right  of  conquest  as  maintained  by 
Catholics.  After  having  asserted,  without  any  sufficient  evidence,  that 
the  holy  See  claimed  a  right  to  all  pagan  lands,  he  adds: 

“  Thus  Alexander  VI.  generously  granted  a  large  portion  of  the  western 
hemisphere  to  the  Spaniards,  and  of  the  eastern  to  the  Portuguese.  These 
lofty  pretensions  of  the  successoi-s  of  the  humble  fishermen  of  Galilee,  far 
from  being  nominal,  were  acknowledged  and  appealed  to  as  conclusive  in 
controversies  between  nations.”^ 

This  last  fact  solves  the  whole  problem.  The  Catholic  powers  of  Europe, 
fearing  to.  come  into  collision  in  the  rapid  progress  of  their  discoveries, 
appealed,  by  mutual  consent,  to  the  common  father  of  the  fiiithful,  as  a 
freely  chosen  arbitrator,  to  mark  out  the  limits  of  their  prospective  terri¬ 
tories.  The  Popes,  feeling  that  their  powerful  mediation  might  prevent 
war  and  bloodshed,  as  freely  acceded  to  the  proposal.  The  result  proved 
their  wisdom  and  forecast.  The  treaty  of  Tordesillas  between  the  Spanish 
and  Portuguese  governments,  proceeding  on  the  basis  of  this  papal  par¬ 
tition,  settled,  without  a  drop  of  blood,  a  controversy  which  otherwise 
might  have  involved  both  governments  in  a  dreadful  war.'* 

That  this  is  the  true  view  of  the  whole  matter,  appears  more  clearly 
from  Mr.  Prescott’s  own  admission — singularly  inconsistent  with  his 
previous  random  assertions.  He  says  :  * 

“  It  should  be  remarked  that,  whatever  difference  of  opinion  existed 


1  Vol  iii.  p.  117. 
i  Cf  I’reicott,  ibid.  note. 


1  Ibid. 


3  Ibid.  vol.  ii,  p.  31. 
5  Ibid  p  32,  note. 


character  of  the  conquerors. 


269 


between  the  Roman  Catholic  —  or  rather  the  Spanish  and  Portuguese 
nations  —  and  the  rest  of  Europe,  in  relation  to  the  true  foundation  of* 
their  titles  in  a  moral  view,  they  have  always  bden  content  in  their  contro¬ 
versies  with  one  another,  to  rest  them  exclusively  on  priority  of  discovery.’^ 

And  in  proof  of  this,  he  quotes  Vattel  and  Chancellor  Kent.  Thus  it 
is  manifest,  from  our  author’s  own  showing,  that  his  assertion  concerning 
the  Catholic  nations  resting  their  titles  “  in  the  good  pleasure  of  the 
Pope,”  is  all  a  fallacy,  — a  mere  insipid  crust  thrown  to  the  Cerberus  of 
bigotry. 

We  have  a  word  to  bestow,  by  the  way,  on  our  old  friends,  the  good 
Puritans  of  New  England,  whom  Mr.  Prescott  draws  into  the  discussion 
on  the  right  of  conquest.  He  admits  “that  King  James’  patent  asserted 
rights  as  absolute  nearly  as  those  claimed  by  the  Roman  See.”'  But  the 
Puritans  of  New  England  did  not  rest  their  claims  on  this  patent  —  not 
they  !  Nor  did  they  rest  them  on  the  general  arguments  alleged  by  other 
Protestants,  ^drawn  from  the  design  of  God  that  the  soil  of  the  earth  should 
be  extensively  cultivated,  or  from  the  wants  of  an  ever-expanding  civili¬ 
zation.  They  were  far  too  enlightened  to  maintain  their  titles  under  any 
such  flimsy  pretexts  !  “  On  the  contrary,”  our  author  tells  us,  “  they 

established  their  title  to  the  soil  by  fair  purchase  of  the  aborigines  ;  thus 
forming  an  honorable  contrast  to  the  policy  pursued  by  too  many  of  the 
settlers  on  the  American  continent.”^ 

All  that  this  fine  picture  needs  is  fidelity  of  outline,  and  truth  of 
coloring.  In  bargaining,  the  aborigines  of  North  America  were  no  match 
for  the  shrewd  Puritans;  especially,  as  was  often  the  case,  after  the  heads 
of  the  former  had  been  excited  “by  copious  draughts  of  rum  !”  They 
often  sold  their  territory  for  a  mere  trifle  :  sometimes,  as  in  the  case  of  the 
Pequods  of  Connecticut,  their  soil  was  seized  on  by  reckless  violence. 
The  good  Puritans  were  too  often  wont  to  treat  them  as  Amalecites,  who 
were  to  be  driven  without  mercy  from  their  new  Chanaan. 

If  there  be  any  truth  in  history,  it  is  certain  that  the  Puritans  were  in 
the  habit  of  first  cheating,  then  of  goading  into  war,  next  of  driving  into 
the  wilderness  or  selling  into  bondage,  and  lastly,'  if  other  means  failed, 
of  exterminating  the  poor  Indian  tribes  of  New  England  !  The  preachers 
often  accompanied  these  expeditions  of  extermination,  marching  at  the 
head  of  the  troops,  and  with  the  “godly  Stone,”  pouring  forth  long  prayers 
for  the  success  of  their  arms.l 

Did  Mr.  Prescott  forget  that  the  Puritans  exterminated  or  drove  into 
the  wilderness  all  the  once  flourishing  tribes  of  New  England  —  the 
Pokanokets,  the  Naragansetts,  the  Pequods  ?  Did  he  forgot  the  treach¬ 
erous  manner  in  which  they  requited  the  generous  hospitality  of  old 
Massasoit  —  who  had  first  sheltered  them  in  his  wigwam — by  selling  the 
only  heir  of  his  house  into  bondage  under  the  burning  sand  of  Bermudas  ? 
Did  he  forget  the  long  continued  and  cold  blooded  and  systematic  cruelty, 

1  Cf.  Prescott,  p.  32,  note.  2  Ibid. 

3  Cf.  Bancroft  passim.  In  our  He  view  of  Webster’s  Bunker  Hill  speech,  {infra,)  the  subject 
will  be  discussed  at  length. 

2B2 


270 


Prescott’s  conquest  of  Mexico. 


with  which  they  successively  swept  from  the  face  of  the  earth  most  of  the 
original  occupants  of  the^  soil  ?  Did  he  forget  that  they  did  little  or 
nothing  for  their  religious  culture  ?  Could  he,  a  New  Englander,  have 
wholly  forgotten  all  these  things,  to  say  nothing  of  the  blue  laws  and  the 
burning  of  witches  ?  If  he  did  not,  why  hold  up  his  forefathers  as  such 
paragons  of  perfection,  and  models  for  imitation  ?  The  fairness  of  the 
Puritans,  forsooth  ! 

2.  This  naturally  leads  us  to  the  second  question  :  Did  the  Spaniards 
stain  their  Conquest  of  Mexico  with  wanton  and  unnecessary  cruelty  ? 

Mr.  Prescott’s  own  authority  warrants  us  to  answer  emphatically  in  tlie 
negative.  Our  limits  will  not  allow  us  to  dwell  at  any  great  length  on 
this  question:  nor  is  it  necessary  to  do  so.  The  subject  will  probably 
recur  in  our  next  article  on  Mr.  Prescott’s  work,  in  which  we  mean  to 
speak  of  the  religious  point  of  view  of  the  Conquest ;  and  besides,  the 
case  is  a  very  plain  one,  and,  though  complicated  in  its  details,  is  yet 
easily  made  out.  Never  was  there,  perhaps,  in  the  whole  history  of 
mankind,  a  conquest  which  was  effected  with  less  bloodshed.  Never  was 
there  one  which  was  conducted  with  more  moderation  and  discretion,  even 
in  the  heat  of  the  most  stirring  scenes.  Never  was  there  one  stained  with 
fewer  crimes,  or  in  which  more  effectual  means  were  adopted  to  check 
violence  and  to  stay  cruelty. 

/  All  this  can  be  easily  established  by  incontestable  evidence.  We  have 
already  seen,  how  humane  was  the  spirit  breathed  by  the  instructions 
furnished  to  Cortes  by  Velasquez.  Mr.  Prescott  is  our  witness  that  Cortes 
faithfully  kept  those  instructions,  at  least  until  he  had  reacdied  Cholula, 
on  his  way  to  the  Aztec  capital : 

“  The  present  expedition,  up  to  the  period  of  its  history  at  which  we 
are  now  arrived,  had  been  probably  stained  with  fewer  of  such  acts  (of 
violence,)  than  almost  any  similar  enterprise  of  the  Spanish  discoverers 
in  the  new  world.  Throughout  the  campaign,  Cortes  had  prohibited  all 
wanton  injuries  to  the  natives,  and  had  punished  the  perpetrators  of  them 
with  exemplary  severity.  He  had  been  faithful  to  his  friends,  and  with 
perhaps  a  single  exception,  not  unmerciful  to  his  foes.”* 

What  this  single  exception  is,  we  are  at  a  loss  to  guess,  unless  th 
historian  refers  to  his  having  had  the  hands  of  the  Tlascalan  spies  cut  off, 
and  his  having  sent  them  to  their  countrymen  in  this  mutilated  condition. 
But  this  severity,  shocking  as  it  may  appear  to  our  present  delicacy,  was 
really  an  act  of  mercy  to  the  fierce  Tlascalans,  whose  souls  were  thus 
stricken  with  a  terror  that  induced  them  to  close  the  war,  and  thereby  to 
stop  the  effusion  of  blood  :  it  was  such  even  to  the  spies  themselves,  whom 
the  international  law  of  all  nations  would  have  consigned,  and  would  even 
now  consign,  to  the  gallows.  Was  Washington  inhumane,  because  he 
persisted  in  having  Major  Andrfe  hung,  though  this  brave  man  urgently 
entreated,  as  a  last  request,  that  he  might  be  permitted  to  die  the  death 
of  a  soldier  ? 


1,  Vol.  ii,  p.  23. 


CHARACTER  OP  TI£E  CONQUERORS. 


271 


We  do  not  mean  to  say  that  all  the  deeds  of  the  Conquerors  are 
defensible,  or  that  they  never  perpetrated  acts  of  cruelty  unwarranted  by 
the  trying  circumstances  in  which  they  were  placed.  But  we  do  assert, 
that  when  all  the  circumstances  are  duly  and  impartially  weighed,  there 
was  less  of  wanton  cruelty  than  in  any  similar  expedition  for  conquest 
recorded  in  history.  The  actions  of  men  struggling  to  win  an  empire, 
and  placed  in  daily  and  hourly  peril  of  their  lives,  with  treachery  often 
lurking  in  their  own  camp,  and  snares  encompassing  them  from  without, 
are  not  surely  to  be  judged  by  the  rules  of  every  day  life.  Rightly 
to  appreciate  them,  we  must  divest  ourselves  of  the  present,  transport 
ourselves  back  to  their  own  times,  and  intermingle  with  them  in  all  the 
stirring  scenes  of  their  great  drama.  Judging  the  Conquerors  by  this 
equitable  standard,  we  will  find  that  they  were  guilty  of  fewer  acts  of 
violence  than  many  refined  nations  of  even  this  enlightened  age,  placed 
under  similar  circumstances.  The  bloody  deeds  of  the  Conquerors  almost 
disappear,  when  put  in  comparison  with  the  cruelties  perpetrated  by  the 
enlightened  English  at  the  storming  of  Badajoz,’  and  in  other  passages  of 
the  Peninsular  war ;  to  say  nothing  of  the  other  multiplied  horrors  of 
the  wars  which  lately  desolated  Europe. 

The  wanton  cruelties,  perpetrated  by  some  of  the  Spanish  commandei-s, 
were  severely  rebuked  by  Cortes.  Thus  the  cold-blooded  massacre  of  the 
Mexicans,  ordered  by  Alvarado,  in  the  absence  of  Cortes  from  the  capital, 
was  strongly  censured  by  him  on  his  return,  however  much  Alvarado 
sought  to  justify  it  by  motives  of  alarm  and  of  expediency.  Speaking  of 
this  incident,  Mr.  Prescott  says  : 

“When  Alvarado  had  concluded  his  answejrs  to  the  several  interroga¬ 
tories  of  Cortes,  the  brow  of  the  latter  darkened  as  he  said  to  his 
lieutenant:  ‘  You  have  done  badly.  You  have  been  false  to  your  trust. 
Your  conduct  has  been  that  of  a  madman.’  And,  turning  abruptly  on 
his  heel,  he  left  him  in  undisguised  displeasure.”^ 

There  is  scarcely  a  deed  of  cruelty  ascribed  to  the  Spaniards,  which 
had  not  its  justifying,  or  at  least  its  palliating  circumstances.  Thus  the 
massacre  at  Cholula,  ordered  by  Cortes,  was  viewed  by  him  as  a  necessary 
measure  of  self-defense,  under  circumstances  of  imminent  peril  to  the 
very  existence  of  the  Spaniards.  They  had  entered  the  city  as  friends  ; 
they  had  been  received  as  friends  ;  they  had  conducted  themselves  as 
friends.  While  every  external  appearance  indicated  friendship  on  the 
part  of  the  Cholulans,  and  promised  security  to  their  guests,  a  foul  con¬ 
spiracy  was  detected,  which  aimed  at  nothing  less  than  the  extermination 
of  the  whole  Spanish  army  !  Thus  betrayed  by  men  wearing  the  mask 
of  friendship,  Cortes  determined  to  strike  the  first  blow,  as  the  only 
means  his  genius  could  suggest  to  avert  the  threatened  destruction.  And 
though,  reposing  in  the  security  of  our  closet,  we  may  be  inclined  to 
think  that  he  exceeded  the  just  measure  of  legitimate  defense,  yet  the 
result  justified  his  forecast.^ 

1  Mr.  Prescott  admits  this,  vol  ii,  p.  34.  2  Vol.  ii,  p.  289.  3  Cf.  Ibid.  pp.  33—35. 


272 


PRESCOTT^S  CONQUEST  OF  MEXICO. 


A  notlier  matter  of  crimination  against  Cortes  is  the  seizure  of  Montezuma 
in  his  own  capital,  wliile  the  emperor  was  regaling  him  and  his  army 
with  princely  hospitality.  But  fairness  requires  us  to  remember,  that  the 
truth  and  honesty  of  the  Aztec  emperor  were  strongly  suspected  ;  and 
that  his  previous  conduct  had  rendered  these  suspicions  doubly  strong. 
The  Spaniards  too  were  in  a  most  critical  situation,  in  the  midst  of  hostile 
myriads,  who  awaited  only  the  beck  of  Montezuma  to  pounce  on  and 
destroy  them;  or  lead  them  to  the  fatal  stone  of  sacrifice.  In  this  emer¬ 
gency,  their  only  security  lay  in  possessing  themselves  of  the  person  of 
Montezuma,  and  in  using  his  influence  to  subdue  the  city,  without  shed¬ 
ding  a  drop  of  blood.  It  was  a  bold  step,  worthy  the  genius  and  daring 
of  Cortes;  and,  as  a  matter  of  expediency,  and  even,  in  a  certain  sense, 
of  humanity,  it  was  a  master-siroke  of  policy.  Mr.  Prescott  himself, 
though  he  follows  the  most  unfavorable  accounts  of  the  transaction,  yet 
pronounces  this  equitable  opinion: 

**  To  view  the  matter  differently,  we  must  take  the  position  of  the  Con¬ 
querors,  and  assume  with  them  the  original  right  of  conquest.  Regarded 
from  this  point  of  view,  many  difficulties  vanish.  If  conquest  was  a 
duty,  every  thing  necessary  to  effect  it  was  right  also.  Right  and 
expedient  became  convertible  terms.  And  it  can  hardly  be  denied  that 
the  capture  of  the  monarch  was  expedient,  if  the  Spaniards  would  maintain 
their  hold  on  the  empire.”^ 

It  is  scarcely  pretended,  that  after  his  seizure,  Montezuma  was  treated 
with  wanton  inhumanity  by  the  Spaniards.  Their  treatment  of  the  brave 
and  patriotic  Guatamozin,  after  the  fall  of  Mexico,  is  not  so  easily 
defended.  But  if  he  was  submitted  to  the  torture,  it  is  but  justice  to 
Cortes  to  say,  that  he  opposed  it  with  all  his  might,  and  only  -yielded  to 
the  clamor  of  his  soldiers  supported  by  the  royal  treasurer,  Alderete.’ 
The  soldiers  were  flushed  with  victory,  and  goaded  into  madness  by  disap¬ 
pointment  in  not  finding  the  expected  booty,  which,  it  was  alleged, 
Guatamozin  had  concealed,  they  openly  threatened  insurrection  :  and  it  is 
difficult  to  say  how  far  the  influence  even  of  Cortes  could  have  checked 
or  stayed  their  violence.  Indeed,  when  we  reflect  with  how  motley  and 
reckless  a  soldiery  he  had  to  deal,  we  are  lost  in  amazement  at  the  success 
of  his  efforts  to  enforce  subordination,  and  to  prevent  deeds  of  wanton 
cruelty. 

If  Guatamozin  was  subsequently  executed  by  Cortes,  we  shou.d  bear 
in  mind,  that  the  deed  was  done  amidst  the  awful  scenes  of  that  dreadful 
march  to  Honduras  :  and  we  could  pardon  almost  every  thing  to  a  man 
exhausted  by  so  many  hardships,  and  beset  with  so  many  dangers.  Any 
one  who  will  read  attentively  Mr.  Prescott’s  account  of  the  whole  trans¬ 
action,  must  come  to  the  conclusion,  that  Cortes  viewed  it  as  a  necessary 
measure  of  security  to  the  lives  of  himself  and  followers.  His  Indian 
auxiliaries  vastly  outnumbered  his  own  troops  :  amid  those  dreary  marshes 
of  Chiapa,  the  Spaniards  were  wholly  in  the  power  of  their  Aztec  allies ; 

1  Mr.  Prescott  admits  as  much,  Tol.  ii,  p.  159.  2  Vol  ii,  p.  176.  3  Cf.  Prescott,  iii,  236,  et  seq. 


CHARACTER  OF  THE  CONQUERORS. 


273 


these  threatened  to  pounce  upon  them  in  their  exhausted  condition,  and 
to  rear  again  the  fallen  banner  of  Guatamozin.  A  conspiracy  for  this 
purpose  was  organized,  of  which  the  fallen  emperor  was  believed  to  be 
the  ringleader.  Under  these  trying  circumstances,  Cortes  thought  that 
he  had  no  alternative. ‘ 

Finally,  if  much  blood  was  shed,  and  many  horrors  enacted  during  the 
6nal  siege  and  capture  of  Mexico,  it  was  not  so  much  the  fault  of  the 
Spaniards,  as  of  the  circumstances  of  the  siege  itself.  The  Spaniards 
would  fain  have  taken  the  capital  without  shedding  a  drop  of  blood;  but 
the  obstinate  spirit  of  the  Aztecs  resisted  all  their  repeated  overtures  for 
a  capitulation.  We  cannot  better  vindicate  the  conduct  of  the  Conquerors 
in  this  emergency,  than  in  the  language  of  Mr.  Prescott : 

Their  swords  were  rarely  stained  with  blood,  unless  it  was  indis¬ 
pensable  to  the  success  of  their  enterprise.  Even  in  the  last  siege  of  the 
capital,  the  sufferings  of  the  Aztecs,  terrible  as  they  were,  do  not  imply 
any  unusual  cruelty  in  the  victors  :  they  were  not  greater  than  those 
inflicted  on  their  own  countrymen  at  home,  in  many  a  memorable  instance, 
by  the  most  polished  nations,  not  merely  of  ancient  times,  but  of  our  own. 
They  were  the  inevitable  consequences  which  follow  from  war,  when, 
instead  of  beincr  confined  to  its  own  leuitimate  field,  it  is  brouQfht  home 
to  the  hearth-stone,  to  the  peaceful  community  of  the  city, —  its  burghers 
untrained  to  arms,  its  women  and  children  yet  more  defenseless.  In  the 
present  instance,  indeed,  the  sufferings  of  the  besieged  were  in  a  great 
degree  to  be  charged  on  themselves, — on  their  patriotic  but  desperate 
self-devotion.  It  was  not  the  desire,  as  it  was  certainly  not  the  interest, 
of  the  Spaniards  to  destroy  the  capital  or  its  inhabitants.  When  any  of 
these  fell  into  their  hands,  they  were  kindly  entertained,  their  wants 
supplied,  and  every  means  taken  to  infuse  into  them  a  spirit  of  conciliation; 
and  this,  .too,  it  should  be  remembered,  in  spite  of  the  dreadful  doom  to 
which  they  consigned  their  Christian  captives.  The  gates  of  a  fair 
capitulation  were  kept  open,  though  unavailingly,  to  the  last  hou)-.  The 
right  of  conquest  necessarily  implies  that  of  using  whatever  force  may  be 
necessary  for  overcoming  resistance  to  the  assertion  of  that  right.  For 
the  Spaniards  to  have  done  otherwise  than  they  did,  would  have  been  to 
abandon  the  siege,  and  with  it  the  conquest  of  the  country.  To  have 
suffered  the  inhabitants,  with  their  high-spirited  monarch,  to  escape, 
would  but  have  prolonged  the  miseries  of  war,  by  transferring  it  to 
another  and  more  inaccessible  quarter.  They  literally,  as  far  as  the 
success  of  the  expedition  was  concerned,  had  no  choice.  If  our  indig¬ 
nation  is  struck  with  the  amount  of  suffering  in  this,  and  in  similar  scenes 
of  the  Conquest,  it  should  be  borne  in  mind,  that  it  is  a  natural  result  of 
the  o’reat  masses  of  men  enffaffed  in  the  conflict.”  ^ 

In  conclusion,  we  would  beg  the  impartial  reader  to  compare  for  a 
moment  the  Spanish  Conquest  of  Mexico  with  the  English  Conquest  of 
India  ;  and  the  Spanish  Hernando  Cortes  with  the  English  Lord  Clive. 
How  immaculate  do  even  the, darkest  deeds  of  the  Spanish  Conquerors 
appear,  when  placed  by  the  side  of  those  done  by  the  English  of  the 
eighteenth  century  in  India  ?  For  drops  of  blood  shed  by  the  Spaniards,, 
the  English  shed  gallons  ;  for  tens  on  whom  the  Spaniards  inflicted  suf- 


1  Cf.  Ibid,  p.  2S5,  et  seq. 


21 


2  Vol.  iii,  pp  218,  219. 


274  Prescott’s  conquest  of  Mexico. 


fering,  the  English  inflicted  it  on  thousands.  The  horrors  of  the  Spanish 
Conquest  were  transient;  and  they  were  speedily  forgotten  in  the  blessings 
of  the  new  civilization  of  which  the  Conquerors  were  the  harbingers : 
the  horrors  of  the  English  Conquest  still  remain,  increased  a  hundred 
fold  ;  the  tens  of  millions  of  enslaved  and  crushed  victims,  yet  send  forth 
their  notes  of  wailing  under  English  tyranny.  The  dreadful  horrors 
recently  enacted  in  Afghanistan  and  Schinde  are  but  links  in  the  chain 
of  a  systematic  cruelty  and  oppression  which  has  continued,  with  little 
interaiission,  since  the  first  moment  of  the  Conquest, —  or  for  the  last 
ninety  years  !  Lastly,  the  Spaniards  abolished  the  horrid  human  sacrifices 
of  the  Aztecs,  and  indoctrinated  them  in  Christianity  ;  the  English  bowed 
down  the  bodies,  but  cared  little  for  the  souls  of  their  vicl.ims  ;  and  the 
horrid  car  of  Juggernaut  still  crushes  its  hundreds  of  fanatical  worshipers  ! 

And  then,  how  does  the  character  of  Lord  Clive  compare,  or  rather 
contrast  with  that  of  Hernando  Cortes  !  Bold,  daring,  gifted,  and  suc¬ 
cessful  like  Cortes,  Clive  had  not  a  particle  of  his  chivalry,  nor  of  his 
moral  principle.  As  a  warrior,  too,  he  was  vastly  inferior.  He  had  not 
the  same  difficulties  to  contend  with,  nor  the  same  fierce  and  warlike 
tribes  to  encounter.  Though  assisted  with  fire-arms,  the  soft  and  effemi¬ 
nate  Bengalee  was  not  to  be  put  in  comparison  with  the  fierce  Aztec,  and 
the  warlike  Tlascalan.  Finally,  Cortes  was  an  honorable  and  high-minded 
cavalier,  whose  lofty  nature  could  not  stoop  to  meanness ;  Clive  was  an 
intriguer,  a  hypocrite,  a  forger !  *  The  two  names  of  Lord  Clive  and 
Hernando  Cortes  should  not  be  breathed  together,  nor  written  on  the 
same  page,  any  more  than  those  of  Warren  Hastings  and  the  very  worst 
of  the  Spanish  viceroys  that  ever  ruled  in  the  Mexican  capital. 

1  We  would  ask  those,  who  may  be  disposed  to  think  these  epithets  unwarrantable  or  too  strong, 
to  read  Macaulay’s  review  of  Malcolm’s  Life  of  Clive,”  We  can  present  only  the  following  brief 
extract:  “Accordingly  this  man,  in  all  the  other  parts  of  his  life  an  honorable  English  gentleman 
and  soldier,  was  no  sooner  matched  against  an  Indian  intriguer  than  he  became  himself  an  Indian 
intriguer,  and  descended  without  scruple  to  falsehood,  to  hypocritical  caresses,  to  the  substitution  of 
documents,  and  to  counterfeiting  of  hands!  ”  Macaulay’s  Miscellanies,  8vo.  p.  327.  Carey  &  Hart, 
Philadelphia,  1848.  Read  the  entire  Review,  as  also  the  article  on  Warren  Hastings,  ibid,  p.  400,  et  wj. 


I 


i 


Xiy.  PRESCOTT’S  CONQUEST  OF  MEXICO. 

ARTICLE  ir. 

THE  RELIGIOUS  POINT  OF  VIEW  OF  THE  CONQUEST.* 

Religious  point  of  view  necessary  — Noble  sentiment  of  Lope  de  Vega  —  Spaniards  much  influenced 
by  it —  Prescott’s  testimony  — The  Spanish  cavalier,  a  soldier  of  the  Cross  —  Injustice  done  his 
character  by  Prescott  —  The  age  of  chivalry  compared  with  the  present  —  Motives  which  actuated 
Cathoiic  and  Protestant  navigators  and  pioneers — A.  holy  Crusade — Religious  character  of 
Cortes  —  His  standard  —  Stirring  address  to  his  soldiers  —  The  Cross  unfurled  — And  animating  the 
army  — Zeal  for  the  conversion  of  the  natives —  Religious  rites  and  worship  —  Relative  adaptation 
of  Catholic  and  Protestant  systems  for  making  proselytes —  Prescott’s  theory  examined  ~  Remark¬ 
able  incidents  showing  the  piety  of  the  Conquerors  —  Their  zeal  sometimes  too  fiery  —  Catholic 
missionaries  —  They  oppose  cruelty  to  the  natives  —  As  well  as  all  forced  conversions  —  Las  Casas 
and  Olmedo  —  Alleged  intemperate  zeal  of  Cortes  —  Idols  cast  down  —  Explanation  and  defense — 
Charitable  zeal  of  Olmedo  — Aquilar  and  other  missionaries  — Religious  ceremonies  on  launching 
the  fleet  —  And  at  the  termination  of  the  siege — Missionaries  after  the  Conquest  —  Destruction 
of  the  Teocallis  —  Great  number  of  converts  among  the  Aztecs  —  How  accounted  for —  Prescott’s 
.  theory — “  The  Aztec  worship  and  Romish  ritual!” — Alleged  similarity  between  the  two  — 
Curious  coincidences  —  Alleged  miracles  —  Loss  and  gain  to  the  Church  —  Conclusion. 

In  our  first  article,  we  endeavored  to  show  what  was  the  character  of 
the  Conquest  and  of  the  Conquerors  of  Mexico ;  and  we  examined  how 
far  Mr.  Prescott  has  done  justice  to  the  subject.  In  the  present  paper, 
which  will  conclude  our  remarks  on  Mr.  Prescott’s  work,  we  intend 
briefly  to  unfold  the  Religious  Point  of  View  of  the  Conquest,  and  to 
vindicate  from  the  assaults  of  prejudice  or  ignorance  the  eminently 
religious  character  of  the  Conquerors. 

Without  examining  the  religious  aspect  of  the  Conquest,  it  were  utterly 
impossible  rightly  to  understand  or  properly  to  appreciate  its  character. 
Religion  was,  in  fact,  its  great  end  and  aim  ;  its  all-pervading  motive ; 
its  very  life  and  soul.  Religion  nerved  the  arms,  stimulated  the  courage, 
and  ennobled  the  chivalry  of  the  Conquerors.  Religion  accompanied  the 
Conquest  in  every  eventful  stage  of  its  progi’ess,  softened  down  its 
manifold  horrors,  bound  up  and  healed  with  a  heavenly  balm  its  many 
bleeding  wounds  ;  and  soothed  and  raised  up,  by  her  sweet  ministrations 
of  mercy,  the  bruised  hearts  and  crushed  spirits  of  the  vanquished.  All 
this  we  hope  to  make  appear,  from  unquestionable  evidence. 

One  among  the  greatest  of  the  Spanish  poets,  Lope  de  Vega,  has  in  a 

^  Hist  on/  of  the  Conquest  of  Mexico,  with  a  Preliminaiy  View  of  the  Ancient  Mexican 
Civilization,  and  the  Life  of  the  Conqueror,  Hernando  Cortes.  By  William  H.  Prescott, 
author  of  the  History  of  Ferdinand  and  Isabella.  In  3  vols.  8  vo.,  pp.  488,  480,  524 
Harper  &  Brothers ;  New  York,  1843.  275 


276 


Prescott’s  conquest  of  Mexico. 


single  brief  couplet  unfolded  the  whole  purpose  of  Hernando  Cortes,  and 
the  great  object  of  the  Conquest  which  he  achieved  :  — 

“  A1  rey  infinitas  tierras, 

Y  a  Dios  iufiniras  aluias.”* 

To  extend  the  boundaries  of  the  Spanish  empire  over  the  vast  territories 
of  the  new  world,  and  thereby  to  gain  an  infinite  number  of  souls  to  God, 
was  the  twofold  object  of  this  and  of  every  other  Spanish  Conquest.  Mr. 
Prescott  himself  assures  us,  that  this  “  is  the  light  in  which  the  Conquest 
Vas  viewed  by  every  devout  Spaniard  of  the  sixteenth  century.”^  With 
the  great  French  Catholic  Champlain  of  North  America,  the  “devout 
Spaniard”  of  that  day  deemed  “the  salvation  of  a  soul  more  glorious 
than  the  conquest  of  an  empire.”’  This  heavenly  motive  of  winning  souls 
to  God  was  much  stronger  in  the  mind  and  heart  of  the  Spanisli  Catholic, 
than  the  earthly  motive  of  mere  worldly  conquest.  The  former  often 
prompted  to  the  latter.  The  desire  of  planting  the  cross  in  the  midst  of 
heathen  nations,  and  of  thereby  bringing  them  from  “the  region  of  the 
shadow  of  death,”  into  the  bright  land  of  Christian  civilization,  generally 
preceded,  it  always  accompanied  the  expedition  for  discover^  and  conquest. 
Upon  this  subject  let  us  hear  Mr.  Prescott,  whose  testimony  has  additional 
weight,  from  the  circumstance  that  it  is  extracted  from  that  portion  of  his 
history  in  which  he  unfolds  the  strange  theory  of  Catholic  Conquest,  to 
which  we  adverted  in  our  first  article : 

“With  the  right  of  conquest,  thus  conferred,  came,  also,  the  obligation, 
on  which  it  may  be  said  to  have  been  founded,  to  retrieve  the  nations 
sitting  in  darkness  from  eternal  perdition.  This  obligation  was  acknowl¬ 
edged  by  the  best  and  the  bravest,  the  gownsman  in  his  closet,  the 
missionary,  and  the  warrior  in  the  crusade.  However  much  it  may  have 
been  debased  by  temporal  motives  and  mixed  up  with  worldly  considera¬ 
tions  of  ambition  and  avarice,  it  was  still  active  in  the  mind  of  the 
Christian  conqueror.  We  have  seen  how  far  paramount  it  was  to  every 
calculation  of  personal  interest  in  the  breast  of  Cortes.”^ 

We  have  no  doubt  that  our  historian  sought  to  do  justice  to  the  lofty 
religious  chivalry  of  the  Conquerors  ;  and  if  he  has  not  succeeded  to  the 
full,  we  are  to  ascribe  the  failure  mainly  to  a  deep  and  abiding  prejudice  — 
of  which,  perhaps,  he  himself  was  not  wholly  conscious — against  the 
religion  which  they  professed.  There  is,  however,  this  extenuating 
circumstance  in  the  bigotry  of  Mr.  Prescott,  that  the  evil  generally  carries 
with  it  its  own  remedy.  Wherever  this  dark  stain  of  prejudice  is  seen, 
sullying  the  whiteness  and  marring  the  beauty  of  his  pages,  there,  by  the 
side  of  it,  you  perceive  also,  the  correctives  of  inconsistency,  absurdity, 
and  self-contradiction.  It  would  really  appear,  that  the  enlightened  and 
polished  Mr.  Prescott  claims  the  right  of  being  absurd  and  of  contradicting 
himself,  whenever  he  sets  foot  within  the  hallowed  inclosure  of  the  sanc¬ 
tuary.  We  have  already  given  some  instances  of  this  amiable  foible : 
and  to  show  that  we  are  not  hazarding  assertions,  or  bandying  epithets  at 

1  “To  the  King  boundless  territory,  and  to  God  innumerable  souls.” 

2  Vol.  iii,  p.  362  —  note.  3  See  Bancroft,  History  U.  States,  vol,  iii,  chap,  xx 

4  Vol  ii,  p.  31-2. 


THE  RELIGIOUS  POINT  01  VIEV7. 


277 


random,  we  will  now  proceed  to  point  out  some  others,  in  connection  with 
what  we  may  call  Mr.  Prescott’s  religious  theory  of  the  Conquest. 

To  soften  dawn  the  charge  of  bigotry  brought  against  Cortes,  and  to 
aid  in  estimating  aright  the  true  spirit  of  the  Conquest,  he  offers  the 
following  remarks: 

“  But  this  is  unjust.  We  should  throw  ourselves  back  (it  cannot  be  too 
often  repeated)  into  the  age;  the  age  of  the  Crusades.  For  every  Spanish 
cavalier,  however  sordid  and  selfish  might  be  his  private  motives,  felt 
himself  to  be  the  soldier  of  the  cross.  Many  of  them  would  have  died  in 
defense  of  it.  Whoever  has  read  the  correspondence  of  Cortes,  or,  still 
more,  has  attended  to  the  circumstances  of  his  career,  will  hardly  doubt 
that  he  would  have  been  among  the  first  to  lay  down  his  life  for  the  faith. 
He  more  than  once  periled  life,  and  fortune,  and  the  success  of  his  whole 
enterprise,  by  the  premature  and  most  impolitic  manner  in  which  he 
would  have  forced  conversion  on  the  natives.” ‘ 

To  these  reasonable  remarks  he  adds  the  following  characteristic  reflec¬ 
tions  : 

“To  the  more  rational  (!)  spirit  of  the  present  day,  enlightened  by  a 
purer  (!)  Christianity,  it  may  seem  difficult  to  reconcile  gross  deviations 
from  morals  with  such  devotion  to  the  cause  of  relisfion.  But  the  relicfion 
taught  in  that  day  was  one  of  form  and  elaborate  ceremony.  In  the 
punctilious  attention  to  discipline,  the  spirit  of  Christianity  was  permitted 
to  evaporate.  The  mind,  occupied  with  forms,  thinks  little  of  substance.”^ 

To  us  it  appears  wholly  incomprehensible,  how  a  religion  of  “  mere 
form  and  elaborate  ceremony,”  from  which  “  the  spirit  of  Christianity 
was  permitted  to  evaporate,”  could  have  stimulated  Cortes  “to  lay  down 
his  life  for  the  faith!”  Will  Mr.  Prescott  say,  that  there  was  no  “sub¬ 
stance”  in  this  “devotion  to  the  cause  of  religion?”  Is  he  of  the  opinion, 
that  those  of  the  pi-esent  day,  “enlightened  by  a  purer  Christianity,” 
would  be  prepared  to  lay  down  their  lives  for  its  defense  ?  Did  his 
Puritan  ancestors,  basking  in  the  rays  of  this  “  purer  Christianity,”  covet, 
to  any  great  extent,  the  crown  of  martyrdom  ? 

In  another  place,  our  historian  thus  attempts  to  paint  the  character  of 
the  Spanish  soldier  of  the  cross  : 

“  The  Spanish  cavalier  felt  he  had  a  higher  mission  to  accomplish,  as  a 
soldier  of  the  cross.  However  unauthorized  or  unrighteous  the  war  into 
which  he  had  entered  may  seem  to  us,  to  him  it  was  a  holy  war.  He  was 
in  arms  ao-ainst  the  infidel.  Not  to  care  for  the  soul  of  his  benio-hted 
enemy  was  jto  put  his  own  in  jeopardy.  The  conversion  of  a  single 
soul  miu'ht  cover  a  multitude  of  sins.  It  was  not  for  morals  that  he 
was  concerned,  but  for  the  faith.  This,  though  understood  in  its  most 
literal  and  limited  sense,  comprehended  the  whole  scheme  of  Christian 
morality.”^ 

It  were  difficult  to  reconcile  toofether  the  assertions  contained  in  the  two 
last  sentences;  and  to  understand  clearly  how  the  Spanisli  cavalier  “was 
not  concerned  for  morals,”  while  the  faith,  which  glowed  so- warmly  in  his 
bosom,  “comprehended  the  whole  system  of  Christian  morality!”  If 
the  accomplished  author  meant  to  assert  —  as  seems  probable  —  that  the 
1  Vol.  iii,  p.  361.  2  Ibid.,  p  362.  3  Vol.  i.  pp.  269,  270. 

2G 

% 


278  Prescott’s  conquest  of  Mexico. 


Spanish  knight  was  not  at  all  imbued  with  a  knowledge  of  morality,  and 
was  taught  by  his  Church  to  believe  that  faith  alone  could  save  him 
without  works,  then  we  enter  our  solemn  protest  against  the  assertion, 
which  is  little  better  than  an  injurious  calumny. 

As  soldiers  of  the  cross,  the  Spanish  Conquerors  were  deeply  imbued 
with  that  lofty  and  ardent  spirit  of  chivalry,  which  had  ever  been  a 
prominent  trait  in  their  national  character.  This  spirit  had  grown  up 
amidst  the  perils  and  adventures  of  that  long  protracted  struggle  of  eight 
hundred  years  with  the  Moorish  conquerors  of  Spain ;  whom,  after  many 
a  deadly  contest,  the  noble  Spanish  chivalry  succeeded  in  finally  driving 
from  their  beautiful  country.  It  was  a  struggle  for  their  homes,  for  their 
altars,  for  their  liberties,  for  their  very  existence,  against  those  who  had 
fastened  a  foreign  yoke  of  iron,  together  with  a  foreign  fanaticism,  on  their 
necks.  It  was  a  struggle  of  the  Cross  against  the  Crescent ;  of  Christian 
light  and  civilization  against  Mohammedan  darkness  and  despotism.  The 
Cross  triumphed  ;  and  with  its  triumph  were  intimately  blended  all  the 
most  glowing  reminiscences,  and  all  the  most  glorious  aspirations  *of 
Spanish  patriotism.  This  historical  view  furnishes  us  with  a  key  to  the 
Spanish  character,  and  explains  to  us  its  lofty  bearing  and  its  noble 
chivalry. 

^  When,  after  the  Conquest  of  Granada,  the  Moors  were  finally  driven 
from  Spain,  Spanish  chivalry  panted  for  new  fields  of  action  on  which  it 
mif^ht  win  additional  laurels  ;  and  the  discovery  of  a  new  world,  at  this 
precise  period,  opened  to  its  enterprise  a  new  theater  for  adventure.  Of 
the  spirit  with  which  the  Spanish  cavalier  entered  on  this  new  career* 
Mr.  Prescott  speaks  as  follows  ; 

“  The  period  which  we  are  reviewing  was  still  the  age  of  chivalry ; 
that  stirring  and  adventurous  age,  of  which  we  can  form  little  conception 
in  the  present  day  of  sober,  practical  reality.  The  Spaniard,  with  his  nice 
point  of  honor,  high  romance,  and  proud,  vain-glorious  vaunt,  was  the 
true  representation  of  that  age.  The  Europeans,  generally,  had  not  yet 
learned  to  accommodate  themselves  to  a  life  of  literary  toil,  or  to  the 
drudgery  of  trade,  or  the  patient  tillage  of  the  soil.  They  left  these  to  the 
hooded  inmate  of  the  cloister,  the  humble  burgher,  and  the  miserable 
serf.  Arms  was  the  only  profession  worthy  of  gentle  blood, —  the  only 
career  which  the  high-mettled  cavalier  could  tread  witli  honor.  The  new 
world,  with  its  strange  and  mysterious  perils,  afforded  a  noble  theater  for 
the  exercise  of  his  calling,  and  the  Spaniard  entered  on  it  with  all  the 
enthusiasm  of  a  palladia  of  romance.”  ‘ 

It  is  curious  to  mark  the  different  spirit  with  which  the  various  nations 
of  Europe  embarked  on  the  new  career  of  discovery  and  conquest,  opened 
to  them  by  the  enterprising  genius  of  Columbus  and  other  Catholic  navi* 
gators.  Mr.  Prescott  makes  the  comparison  in  the  folio wingv  remarkable 
passage,  which  immediately  follows  that  just  given  :  • 

“  Oiher  nations  entered  on  it  also,  but  with  different  motives.  The 
Frencli  sent  forth  their  missionai-ies  to  take  up  their  dwelling  among  the 
heathen,  who,  in  the  good  work  of  winning  souls  to  Paradise,  were  content 

1  Vol.  iii,  p  64.  I 


9 


THE  RELIGIOUS  POINT  OF  VIEW.  279 

to  wear  —  nay,  sometimes  seemed  to  court  —  the  crown  of  martyrdom. 

The  Dutch,  too,  had  their  mission,  but  it  was  one  of  worldly  lucre,  and 
they  found  a  recompense  for  toil  and  suffering  in  their  gainful  traffic  witli 
the  natives.  While  our  own  Puritan  fathers,  with  tlie  true  Anglo-Saxon 
spirit,  left  their  pleasant  homes  across  the  waters,  and  pitched  their  tents 
in  the  howling  wilderness,  that  they  might  enjoy  the  sweets  of  civil  and 
religious  freedom.  But  the  Spaniard  came  over  to  the  new  world  in  the 
true  spirit  of  a  knight-errant,  courting  adventure,  however  perilous,  wooing 
danger,  as  it  would  seem,  for  its  own  sake.  With  sword  and  lance,  he 
was  ever  ready  to  do  battle  for  the  faith ;  and,  as  he  raised  his  old  war-cry 
*  of  ‘  St,  Jago,’  he  fancied  himself  fighting  under  the  banner  of  the  military 
apostle,  and  felt  his  single  arm  a  match  for  more  than  a  hundred  infidels  ! 

It  was  the  expiring  age  of  chivalry  ;  and  Spain,  romantic  Spain,  was  the 
land  where  its  liofht  linofered  lono-est  above  the  horizon.”  ‘ 

o  o  o 

The  noble  spirit,  exalted  motives,  and  devoted  Christian  zeal  of  the 
Catholic  French  and  Spaniards,  compare  very  advantageously,  or  rather 
contrast  very  strongly,  with  the  sordid  avarice  and  the  mere  carnal 
motives  of  the  Protestant  Dutch  and  Puritans,  even  if  the  latter  did  pant 
for  “the  sweets  of  civil  and  religious  freedom;” — a  fact  more  than 
questionable,  when  we  consider  their  narrow-minded  bigotry,  their  selfish 
and  exclusive  policy,  and  their  bitter  persecution  of  brother  Protestants. 

Who  would  not  greatly  prefer  to  theirs,  the  noble  type  of  the  Spanish 
character,  as  exhibited  in  the  elevated  religious  zeal,  the  heroic  daring,  • 

and  the  generous  self-devotedness  of  the  soldier  of  the  cross,  in  the  new 
world  ?  Who  so  dead  to  the  feelings  of  chivalry,  as  not  to  be  moved  by 
the  sight  of  a  brave  and  devoted  little  band  of  cavaliers  leaving  home, 

•and  nobly  battling  for  Christianity  in  a  foreign  land  ? 

Feared  by  their  breed,  and  famous  by  their  birth  ; 

Renowned  for  their  deeds,  as  far  from  home 

For  Christian  service,  and  true  chivalry.”  ^ 

Mr.  Prescott  tells  us  more  than  once,  that  the  Conquest  of  Mexico  was 
viewed  by  the  Spaniards  as  a  kind  of  holy  crusade,  for  the  extension  of 
Christianity;  and,  though  we  think  that  he  sometimes  pushes  this  view 
of  the  subject  too  far,  yet,  in  the  main,  it  is  correct.  We  cheerfully 
subscribe  to  the  following  declaration  : 

“  There  can  be  no  doubt,  that  Cortes,  with  every  other  man  in  his 
army,  felt  he  was  engaged  in  a  holy  crusade  ;  and  that,  independently 
of  personal  considerations,  he  could  not  serve  heaven  better,  than  by 
plaining  the  cross  on  the  blood-stained  towers  of  the  heathen  metropolis.”* 

The  whole  history  of  the  Conquest  proves  this  eminently  religious 
character  of  Cortes  and  his  associates,  and  estahlishes  the  fact  that  religious 
zeal  was  the  distinctive  feature  and  the  all-pervading  motive  of  the  whole 
enterprise.  Making  proper  allowance  for  his  strong  prejudice  against  the 
religion  of  the  Conquerors,  Mr.  Prescott  himself  does  justice  to  this 
branch  of  the  subject:  and  in  vindicating  tlie  motives  and  conduct  of  the 
Conquerors,  we  shall  accordingly  have  little  more  to  do  than  to  allege  his 
authoi’ity.  The  givat  number  of  facts  we  shall  have  to  produce,  as  links 

1  Voi.  iii.  pp  G4-5.  2  Shakspeare.  Richard  II.  3  Vol  iii,p.  75. 


280 


Prescott’s  conquest  of  Mexico. 


in  the  chain  of  evidence,  will  allow  us  little  room  for  commeni  ;  nor  will 
much  comment  be  necessary.  We  mean  to  show,  that,  throughout  the 
eventful  vicissitudes  of  the  Conquest,  the  winning  of  souls  to  God  was 
the  all-absorbing  consideration  with  the  Spaniards,  in  comparison  with 
which  all  others  were  undervalued ;  and  that  religion  presided  over  the 
entire  expedition,  mitigating  its  evils,  checking  its  excesses,  and  soothing 
its  horrors. 

Before  Cortes  and  his  army  had  set  foot  on  the  soil  of  Mexico,  this 
noble  purpose  of  converting  the  natives  to  Christianity,  was  strongly 
impressed  on  his  mind,  as  the  chief  object  of  the  expedition.  In  the 
instructions  given  him  by  Velasquez,  the  Governor  of  Cuba,  he  was  told, 
as  we  have  seen,  “to  bear  in  mind,  above  all  things,  that  the  object  which 
the  Spanish  monarch  had  most  at  heart,  was  the  conversion  of  the  Indians; 
and  to  take  the  most  careful  care^  to  omit  nothing  that  might  redound  to 
the  service  of  God  or  his  sovereign.”  ‘ 

Cortes  determined  to  comply  with  the  letter,  while  he  entered  fully  into 
the  spirit  of  these  instructions.  His  banner  was  constructed  in  imitation 
of  the  famous  labarum,  which  Constantine,  the  first  Christian  emperor, 
had  made  after  the  model  of  the  cross  he  had  seen  in  the  heavens ;  and 
it  was  inscribed  with  a  similar  motto  : 

“His  principal  standard,  was  of  black  velvet,  embroidered  with  gold, 
and  emblazoned  witli  a  red  cross  amidst  flames  of  blue  and  white,  with 
this  motto  in  Latin  beneath  :  ‘  Friends,  let  us  follow  the  cross;  and  under 
this  sign,  if  we  have  faith,  we  shall  conquer.’”  ^ 

Ere  he  embarked  on  the  expedition,  Cortes  addressed  his  heroic  little 
band  of  intrepid  adventurers  in  a  strain  well  worthy  the  soldier  of  the 
cross : 

“  You  are  few  in  number,  but  strong  in  resolution;  and,  if  this  does 
not  falter,  doubt  not  but  that  the  Almighty,  who  has  never  deserted  the 
Spaniard  in  his  contest  with  the  infidel,  will  shield  you,  though  encom¬ 
passed  by  a  cloud  of  enemies  ;  for  your  cause  is  a  just  cause,  and  you  are 
to  fight  under  the  banner  of  the  cross.  Go  forward,  then,  with  alacrity 
and  confidence,  and  carry  to  a  glorious  issue  the  work  so  auspiciousl3r’^ 
bei'un.”  ^ 

This  address  was  responded  to  with  enthusiastic  emotion  by  every  man 
in  that  little  army ;  while  the  blessing  of  God  was  solemnly  invoked  on  the 
expedition  ere  it  set  sail : 

“  Cortes  was  well  satisfied  to  find  his  own  enthusiasm  so  largely  shared 
by  his  followers.  Mass  was  then  celebrated  with  the  solemnities  usual 
with  the  Spanish  navigators,  when  entering  on  their  voyages  of  discovery. 
The  fleet  was  placed  under  the  immediate  protection  of  St.  Peter,  the 
patron  saint  of  Cortes  :  and  weighing  anclior,  took  its  departure  on  the 
■eighteenth  day  of  February,  1519,  for  the  coast  of  Yucatan.” 

Cortes  knew  of  no  argument  better  calculated  to  stimulate  the  courao^e 
and  to  awaken  the  ardor  of  his  followers,  than  an  appeal  to  their  religious 
feelings.  On  the  eve  of  his  march  to  Mexico  from  Cempoalla, 

“  The  General  spoke  a  few  words  of  encouragement  to  his  own  men, 

1  Ibid,  Tol.  i,  pp  248-9.  2  Ibid.  p.  258.  3  Ibid.  pp.  263-4.  4  Ibid.  p.  264. 


THE  RELIGIOUS  POINT  OF  VIEW. 


281 


H«  told  them  they  were  now  to  embark,  in  earnest,  on  an  enterprise  which 
had  been  the  great  object  of  their  desires ;  and  that  tlie  blessed  Saviour 
would  carry  them  victorious  through  every  battle  with  their  enemies. 

Indeed,’  he  added,  ‘  this  assurance  must  be  our  stay,  for  every  other 
refuge  is  now  cut  off,  but  that  afforded  by  the  Providence  of  God,  and 
your  own  stout  hearts.’ 

Did  the  courage  of  his  soldiers  seem  likely  to  falter,  when  they  beheld 
themselves  beset  with  difficulties  and  dangers  in  the  heart  of  a  country 
teeming  with  enemies  ?  Did  they  hesitate,  when,  for  instance,  they  were 
about  to  encounter  the  dreadful  embattled  array  of  the  fierce  and  warlike 
TIascalans  ?  — 

“Cortes  put  himself  at  the  head  of  his  cavalry,  and  calling  out, 
*  Forward,  soldiers,  the  Holy  Cross  is  our  banner,  and  under  that  we 
shall  conquer,’  led  his  little  army  through  the  undefended  passage  ;  and 
in  a  few  moments  tliey  trod  the  soil  of  the  free  republic  of  Tlascala.”^ 

Ill  the  desperate  battles  which  ensued  on  the  soil  of  this  fiery-hearted 
republic  crowning  the  mountains  of  Anahuac,  the  banner  of  the  cross, 
and  the  words  of  Cortes  eloquently  enforcing  the  motto  inscribed 
thereon,  led  the  Spanish  army  through  apparently  insuperable  difficulties, 
and  caused  it  to  achieve  prodigies  of  valor.  In  one  of  those  sharp 
contests  with  the  TIascalans,  when  the  chances  for  the  Spaniards  seemed 
desperate,  as  they  beheld  themselves  overwhelmed  by  superior  numbers : 

“Amidst  the  din  of  battle,  the  voice  of  Cortes  was  heard,  cheering  on 
his  soldiers.  ‘If  we  fail  now,’  he  cried,  ‘the  cross  of  Christ  can  never 
be  planted  in  the  land.  Forward,  comrades  !  When  was  it  ever  known 
that  a  Castilian  turned  his  back  on  a  foe  ?  ’  Animated  by  the  words  and 
heroic  bearing  of  their  General,  the  soldiers,  with  desperate  efforts,  at 
length  succeeded  in  forcing  a  passage  through  the  dark  columns  of  the 
enemy,  and  emerged  from  the  defile  on  the  plain  beyond.’’^ 

When,  worn  down  with  fatigue,  and  despairing  of  ever  reaching 
Mexico,  his  soldiers  entreated  Cortes  to  retrace  his  steps,  and  to  lead  tliem 
back  to  the  coast ;  “He  made  answer,  ‘  we  fight  under  the  banner  of  the 
cross  ;  God  is  stronger  than  nature;  ’  and  continued  his  march. When 
his  arms  were  crowned  with  success,  he  attributed  the  victory  and  all  the 
glory  to  God’s  watchful  Providence :  “As  we  fought  under  the  standard 
of  the  cross  for  the  true  faith,  and  the  service  of  your  highness,’’  writes 
he  in  a  despatch  to  Charles  V.,  “  Heaven  crowned  our  arms  with  such 
success,  that,  while  multitudes  of  the  infidels  were  slain,  little  loss  was 
suffered  by  the  Castilians.’’^ 

Throughout  the  whole  expedition,  amidst  all  its  stirring  scenes  and 
hair-breadth  escapes,  Cortes  and  his  followers  never  forgot  that  they  were 
knights  of  the  cross,  and  that  the  chief  object  of  the  enterprise  was  the 
conversion  of  the  natives.  At  Cozumel  and  at  Tabasco ;  at  Cempoalla 
and  on  the  heights  of  Tlascala ;  in  the  holy  city  of  Cholula  and  in  the 
oapiuil  of  Montezuma;  in  conferences  with  country  caziques,  with  Aztec 
nobles,  with  Montezuma  himself :  amidst  the  overpowering  fatigues  of  his 

1  Ibid.  pp.  392-3.  2  Ibid.  p.  405.  3  Ibid,  p  430. 

4  Ibid  p  456.  6  Ibid. 

2C2 


282  Prescott’s  conquest  of  Mexico. 

march,  when  exhausted  and  worn  down  with  hunger,  watchfulness  and 
incessant  fighting  ;  —  at  all  times,  and  in  all  places,  the  object  first  in  his 
thoughts,  and  first  in  his  affections,  the  darling  projeet  of  his  soul,  upon 
which  he  insisted,  in  season  and  out  of  season,’^  was  the  conversion  of 
the  natives  to  Christianity  !  This  we  could  prove  by  a  whole  volume  of 
evidence,  drawn  from  the  work  of  Mr.  Prescott. 

The  first  point  at  whieli  Cortes  came  in  contact  with  the  natives  was  the 
island  of  Cozumel ;  and  our  historian  bears  the  following  testimony  as  to 
his  relifirious  zeal  on  the  oeeasion  : 

O  i 

“  The  first  object  of  Cortes  was  to  reclaim  the  natives  from  their  gross 
idolatry,  and  to  substitute  a  purer  form  of  worship.  .  .  There  was  nothing 
which  the  Spanish  government  had  more  earnestly  at  heart,  than  the 
conversion  of  the  Indians.  It  forms  the  constant  burden  of  their  instruc¬ 
tions,  and  gave  to  the  military  expeditions  in  this  hemisphere  the  air  of 
a  crusade.  The  cavalier  who  embarked  in  them  entered  fully  into  these 
chivalrous  and  devotional  feelings.”* 

A  similar  zeal  for  the  conversion  of  the  natives  was  manifested  at 
Tabasco  : 

“  Before  his  departure  the  Spanish  commander  did  not  omit  to  provide 
for  the  great  object  of  his  expedition,  the  conversion  of  the  natives.  .  .  . 
He  then  caused  the  reverend  fathers  Olmedo  and  Diaz  to  enlighten  their 
minds,  as  far  as  possible,  on  the  great  truths  of  revelation,  urging  them  to 
receive  these  in  place  of  their  heathenish  abominations.  The  Tabascans, 
whose  perceptions  were  no  doubt  materially  quickened  by  the  discipline 
they  had  undergone,  made  but  a  faint  resistance  to  either  proposal.  The 
next  day  was  Palm  Sunday,  and  the  General  resolved  to  celebrate  their 
conversion  by  one  of  those  pompous  ceremonials  of  the  Church,  which 
should  make  a  lasting  impression  on  their  minds.  A  solemn  procession 
was  formed  of  the  whole  army  with  the  ecclesiastics  at  their  head,  each 
soldier  bearing  a  palm-branch  in  his  hand.  The  concourse  was  swelled 
by  thousands  of  Indians  of  both  sexes,  who  followed  in  curious  astonish¬ 
ment  at  the  spectacle.  The  long  files  bent  their  way  through  the 
flowering  savannas  that  bordered  the  settlement,  to  the  principal  temple, 
where  an  altar  was  raised,  and  the  image  of  the  presiding  deity  was 
deposed,  to  make  room  for  that  of  the  Virgin  with  the  infant  Saviour. 
Mass  was  celebrated  by  father  Olmedo,  and  the  soldiers  who  were  capable 
joined  in  the  solemn  chant.  The  natives  listened  in  profound  silence, 
and,  if  we  may  believe  the  chronicler  of  the  event  (Goinara)  who  wit¬ 
nessed  it,  were  melted  into  tears  ;  while  their  hearts  were  penetrated  with 
reverential  awe  for  the  God  of  those  terrible  beinijfs  who  seemed  to  wield 
in  their  own  hands  the  thunder  and  the  lightning.”^ 

To  account  for  the  rapidity  with  which  the  natives  were  converted  to 
Catholic  Christianity,  Mr.  Prescott  here  speculates  as  follows  on  the 
relative  adaptation  of  the  Catholic  and  Protestant  systems  for  making 
proselytes  : 

“The  Roman  Catholic  communion  has,  it  must  be  admitted,  some 
decided  advantages  over  the  Protestant,  for  the  purposes  of  proselytism. 
The  dazzling  pomp  of  its  service,  and  its  touching  appeal  to  the  sensi¬ 
bilities,  affect  the  imagination  of  the  rude  child  of  nature  much  more 


1  Vol.  i,  p,  2G9. 


2  Ibid.  pp.  290-1. 


TUE  RELIGIOUS  POINT  OF  VIEW. 


283 


powerfully  than  tlie  cold  abstractions  of  Protestantism,  which,  addressed 
to  the  reason,  demand  a  degree  of  refinement  and  mental  culture  in  the 
audience  to  comprehend  them.”’ 

In  another  place,  speaking  of  the  conversion  of  the  Totonacs  at  Cem- 
poalla,  he  farther  unfolds  his  theory  on  the  subject,  as  follows  : 

“  Mass  was  performed  by  father  Olmedo,  and  the  impressive  character 
of  the  ceremony  and  the  passionate  eloquence  of  the  good  priest,  touched 
the  feelings  of  the  motley  audience,  until  Indians  as  wtdl  as  Spaniards,  if 
we  may  trust  the  chronicler,  were  melted  into  tears  and  audible  sobs. 
The  Protestant  missionary  seeks  to  enlighten  the  understanding  of  his 
convert  by  the  pale  liglit  of  reason.  But  the  bolder  Catholic,  kindling 
the  spirit  by  the  splendor  of  the  spectacle,  sweeps  along  his  hearers  in  a 
tempest  of  passion,  that  drowns  every  thing  like  reflection  (!)  He  has 
secured  his  convert  by  the  hold  on  his  affections,  —  an  easier  and  more 
powerful  hold  with  the  untutored  savage,  than  reason.”^ 

Honorable  as  is  this  testimony  to  the  Catholic  Church,  coming  from  a 
prejudiced  Protestant,  yet  we  had,  in  our  simplicity,  entertained  the  belief 
that  Protestantism,  with  “  its  cold  abstractions,”  and  “pale  light  of  rea¬ 
son,”  had  not  monopolized  all  the  intellect  of  the  w'orld  ;  and  that  Catholic 
missionaries  were  also  blessed  with  a  small  portion  of  reason  wherewith 
“  to  enlighten  the  understanding  of  their  converts.”  We  may  have  been 
wrong  ;  but  unless  we  are  greatly  mistaken,  Mr.  Prescott  himself  shows, 
in  many  passages  of  his  work  —  some  of  which  we  will  hereafter  furnish  — 
that  the  Catholic  missionaries,  who  accompanied  the  army  of  the  Conquest, 
labored  patiently  to  enlighten  the  understanding,  no  less  than  to  move  the 
hearts  of  their  proselytes. 

We  will  barely  remark  here,  that  our  historian’s  theory,  however  much 
founded  in  truth  it  may  appear  to  be  in  the  main,  does  not  adequately 
explain  the  notorious  and  undeniable  fact,  that  every  nation  which  has 
ever  been  converted  to  Christianity  from  paganism,  and  thereby  reclaimed 
to  civilization,  has  been  converted  by  Catholic  missionaries ;  and  that,  on 
the  contrary,  no  nation  has  ever  been  thus  converted  by  missionaries 
attached  to  the  Protestant  sects  !  For  this  remarkable  result  there  must 
be  some  explanation,  other  than  the  mere  diversity  of  means  employed 
by  the  missionaries  of  the  respective  communions.  There  are  such  things 
as  the  special  blessing  of  God  on  missionary  toil,  and  a  legitimate  mission 
to  undertake  the  work  of  conversion.  Without  these,  all  human  philosophy 
were  unavailing;  for,  “how  can  they  preach  unless  they  be  sent?”^ 
And  there  can  be  no  doubt,  that  the  almost  total  failure  of  Protestant 
missionary  effort  is  ascribable  at  least  as  much  to  the  want  of  these 
essential  conditions,  as  to  the  employment  of  any  inadequate  or  injudicious 
means  for  the  conversion  of  heathens. 

We  might  produce  many  other  instances  of  the  zeal  which  was  every¬ 
where  manifested  by  the  Conquerors  for  the  conversion  of  the  natives. 
But  we  must  be  satisfied  with  one  more  extract,  merely  referring  our 
readers  in  the  margin  to  many  others'' which  we  had  marked  tor  quotation, 

1  Vol.  i,  pp.  *290-1.  Ibid.  p.  361.  3  r.oumn.s,  ch.  x. 

4  Cf.  vol.  i,  pp  33o,  334,  396,  357,  and  vol  ii.  pp.  55.  83-  87,  88.  150,  155,  &c. 


284 


Prescott’s  conquest  of  Mexico. 

but  which  our  narrow  lindits  compel  us  to  exclude.  The  author  is  speaking 
of  the  conference  held  by  Cortes  with  the  Aztec  envoys  of  Montezuma  in 
the  Spanish  encampment  near  Vera  Cruz,  previous  to  the  commencement 
of  the  march  to  Mexico.  The  passage  proves  both  the  piety  of  the 
Conquerors  and  their  zeal  for  converting  the  natives  : 

“  While  they  were  conversing,  the  bell  struck  for  Vesj)ers(?).'  At  the 
sound,  the  soldiers,  throwing  tliemselves  on  their  knees,  offered  up  their 
orisons  before  the  large  wooden  cross  planted  in  the  sands.  As  the 
Aztec  cliiefs  gazed  with  curious  surprise,  Cortes  thought  it  a  favorable 
occasion  to  impress  them  with  what  he  conceived  to  be  a  principal  object 
of  his  visit  to  the  country.  Father  Olmedo  accordingly  expounded,  as 
briefly  and  clearly  as  he  could,  the  great  doctrines  of  Christianity, 
touching  on  the  atonement,  the  passion,  and  the  resurrection,  and  con- 
cludinii'  with  assuring  his  astonished  audience,  that  it  was  their  intention 
to  extirpate  the  idolatrous  practices  of  tlie  nation,  and  to  substitute  the 
pure  worship  of  the  true  God.  He  then  put  into  their  hands  a  little 
image  of  the  Virgin  with  the  infant  Redeemer,  requesting  them  to  place 
it  in  their  temples  instead  of  their  sanguinary  deities.”,^ 

From  the  facts  hitherto  alleged,  the  impartial  reader  will  have  gathered 
what  was  the  spirit,  and  what  the  zeal  of  the  Conquerors  for  the  diffusion 
of  Christianity  and  the  conversion  of  the  Aztecs.  If  this  zeal  was  at 
times  too  fiery  and  impetuous  ;  if  it  occasionally  impelled  the  soldiers  of 
the  cross  to  think  of  appealing  to  their  good  swords,  on  the  failure  of 
milder  means,  for  the  suppression  of  an  abominable  and  inhuman  idolatry ; 
if  they  were  sometimes  betrayed  into  excesses  which  themselves  would 
have  condemned  in  their  cooler  moments  ;  we  are  not  at  all  surprised  at 
these  occasional  outbursts  of  intemperate  zeal  or  passion.  They  are 
nothing  more  than  might  have  been  expected  from  the  heat  of  a  contest, 
fraught  with  so  many  difficulties  and  perils,  pregnant  with  results  so 
momentous,  and  so  very  stirring  and  exciting  in  its  whole  character. 
One  thing  is  certain,  from  the  testimony  of  Mr.  Prescott  himself,  that  the 
Catholic  missionaries  who  accompanied  the  expedition  used  every  effort 
to  mitigate  its  horrors,  and  to  suppress  every  species  of  violence.  They 
were  invariably  the  friends  of  the  natives,  whom  they  sought  to  protect 
from  cruelty  and  oppression  ;  and  they  were  likewise  opposed  to  all  forced 
conversions.  We  will  establish  both  these  facts  by  undeniable  evidence. 

In  regard  to  the  first  —  the  prevention  of  cruelty  to  the  natives  —  the 
following  testimonies  of  our  historian  will  speak  for  themselves  : 

“  The  cruel  system  of  ripartimientos,  or  distribution  of  the  Indians  as 
slaves  among  the  Conquerors,  had  been  suppressed  by  Isabella.  Although 
subsequently  countenanced  by  the  government,  it  was  under  the  most 
careful  limitations.  But  it  is  impossible  to  license  crime  by  halves  —  to 
authorize  injustice  at  all,  and  hope  to  regulate  the  measure  of  it.  The 
eloquent  remonstrances  of  the  Dominicans, —  who  devoted  themselves  to 
the  good  work  of  conversion  in  the  new  world  with  as  much  zeal  as  they 
showed  for  persecution  (!)  in  the  old, — but  above  all,  those  of  Las  Casas, 
induced  the  regent,  Ximenes,  to  send  out  a  commission  with  full  powers 

1  More  probably  for  the  Ang(  lu.«,  or  pome  oOier  devorioo.  This  gross  ignorance  of  our  religious 
practices  i-  not  unusual  with  Protestnut  writers.  2  Vol.  i,  pp.  225-0. 


THE  RELIGIOUS  POINT  OF  VIEW. 


285 


to  inquire  into  the  alleged  grievances,  and  to  redress  them.  It  had 
authority,  moreover,  to  investigate  the  conduct  of  the  civil  officers,  and 
to  reform  any  abuses  in  their  administration.  This  extraordinary  com¬ 
mission  consisted  of  three  Hieronymite  friars  and  an  eminent  jurist,  all 
men  of  learning  and  unblemished  piety.  They  conducted  the  inquiry  in  a 
very  dispassionate  manner;  but,  after  long  deliberation,  came  to  a  conclu¬ 
sion  most  unfavorable  to  the  demands  of  Las  Casas,  who  insisted  on  the 
entire  freedom  of  the  natives.  This  conclusion  they  justified  on  the 
grounds,  that  the  Indians  would  not  labor  without  compulsion,  and  that, 
unless  they  labored,  they  could  not  be  brought  into  communication  with 
the  whites,  nor  be  converted  to  Christianity.  Whatever  we'  may  think 
of  this  argument,  it  was  doubtless  urged  with  sincerity  by  its  advocates, 
whose  conduct  through  their  whole  administration  places  their  motives 
above  suspicion.  They  accompanied  it  with  many  careful  provisions  for 
the  protection  of  the  natives.”* 

The  excellent  commissioners  no  doubt  ascertained  on  the  spot,  that 
the  statements  of  the  good  Las  Casas  in  regard  to  cruelties  practiced  by 
the  Spaniards  towards  the  Indians,  were  greatly  exaggerated.  We  can 
understand  their  decision  on  no  other  principle.  Of  father  Olmedo,  a 
man  as  great  and  as  benevolent  as  Las  Casas,  and  much  more  judicious, 
Mr.  Prescott  speaks  as  follows  : 

“  The  latter  of  these  godly  men  (father  Bartolome  de  Olmedo)  afforded 
a  rare  example  —  rare  in  any  age  —  of  tlie  union  of  fervent  zeal  with 
charity  ;  while  he  beautifully  illustrated  in  his  own  conduct  the  precepts 
which  he  taught.  He  remained  with  the  army  through  the  whole  expedi¬ 
tion,  and  by  his  wise  and  benevolent  counsels  was  often  enabled  to 
mitigate  the  cruelties  of  the  Conquerors,  and  to  turn  aside  the  edge  of 
the  sword  from  the  unfortunate  natives.”  ** 

It  is  a  standing  charge  against  the  Conquerors,  that  they  forced  con¬ 
version  on  the  Mexicans.  This  assertion  is  not  founded  on  fact.  True 
it  is,  that  Cortes  and  his  soldiers,  in  the  ardor  of  their  zeal  for  the 
conversion  of  the  natives,  sometimes  overstepped  the  bounds  of  discretion ; 
but  it  is  equally  true,  that  this  excessive  ardor  was  checked  and  restrained 
by  the  missionaries  accompanying  the  expedition,  who  were  entirely 
opposed  to  all  forced  conversions.  The  indiscretion  of  Cortes,  besides 
being  only  occasional,  consisted  rather  in  too  hastily  removing  the 
abominable  idol-worship  of  the  Aztecs,  than  in  compelling  them  to 
embrace  Christianity.  At  any  rate  there  is  not  one  solitary  instance  on. 
record  of  a  forced  conversion  sanctioned  by  the  Catholic  missionaries. 
These  were  ever  in  favor  of  mildness,  and  patient  instruction  of  the 
Indians.  All  this  can  be  easily  established  on  the  authority  of  Mr. 
Prescott  himself. 

The  first  example  of  the  alleged  intemperate  zeal  of  Cortes,  is  exhibited 
in  his  having  caused  the  hideous  idols  of  Cozumel  to  be  hurled  headlong 
from  the  summit  of  the  Teocalli.  It  was  a  bold  and  daring  stroke,  in 
justification  of  which  there  were,  however,  many  palliating  circumstances. 
The  good  people  of  Cozumel,  on  being  appealed  to  by  the  missionaries  to 
cast  away  their  idols,  “exclaimed  that  these  were  the  gods  who  sent 

1  Vol.  i,  pp.  218,  219.  2  Ibid.  p.  271.  See  also  Tol.  iii,  p.  34G. 


286  Prescott’s  conquest  of  m  e.x  i  c  o  . 

them  the  sunshine  and  the  storm,  and,  should  any  violence  be  offered, 
they  would  be  sure  to  avenge  it,  by  sending  their  lightnings  on  the  heads 
of  the  perpetrators.’^*  The  sequel  is  thus  finely  related  by  Mr.  Prescott: 

Cortes  was  probably  not  much  of  a  polemic.  At  all  events  he 
preferred  on  the  present  occasion  action  to  argument ;  and  thought  that  the 
best  way  to  convince  the  Indians  of  their  error  was  to  prove  the  falsehood 
of  the  prediction.  He  accordingly,  without  further  ceremony,  caused  the 
venerated  images  to  be  rolled  down  the  stairs  of  the  great  temple,  amidst 
the  groans  and  lamentations  of  the  natives.  An  altar  was  hastily  con¬ 
structed,  an  image  of  the  Virgin  and  Child  placed  over  it,  and  Mass  was 
performed  by  Father  Olmedo  and  his  reverend  companion  for  the  first 
time  within  the  walls  of  a  temple  in  New  Spain.  The  patient  ministers 
tried  once  more  to  pour  the  light  of  the  gospel  into  the  benighted  minds 
of  the  islanders,  and  to  expound  the  mysteries  of  the  Catholic  faith.  .  .  . 
They  at  length  found  favor  with  their  auditors,  who,  whether  overawed 
by  the  bold  bearing  of  the  invaders,  or  convinced  of  the  impotence  of 
deities  that  could  not  shield  their  own  shrines  from  violation,  now  con¬ 
sented  to  embrace  Christianity.”  ^ 

Something  similar  occurred  at  Cempoalla,  the  capital  of  the  Totonacs  : 
and  in  both  cases  the  forecast  of  the  great  Cortes  was  justified  by  the 
event,  —  the  conversion  of  the  natives.  The  old  Cempoallan  cazique,  on 
being  urged  by  the  Spaniards  to  cast  down  his  blood-stained  idols,  had 
shuddered  at  the  thought,  and  had 

‘‘  Covered  his  face  with  his  hands,  exclaiming,  ‘  that  the  gods  would 
avenge  their  own  wrongs.’  The  Christians  were  not  slow  in  availing  them¬ 
selves  of  his  tacit  acquiescence.  Fifty  soldiers,  at  a  signal  from  their 
General,  sprang  up  the  great  stairway  of  the  temple,  entered  the  building 
on  the  summit,  the  walls  of  which  were  hlack  with  human  gore,  tore  the 
large  wooden  idols  from  their  foundations,  and  dragged  them  to  the  edge 
of  the  terrace.  .  .  .  With  great  alacrity  they  rolled  the  colossal  monsters 
down  the  steps  of  the  pyramid,  amidst  the  triumphant  shouts  of  their  own 
companions,  and  the  groans  and  lamentations  of  the  natives.  They  then 
consummated  the  whole  by  burning  them  in  the  presence  of  the  assembled 
multitude.  The  same  effectibllowed  as  at  Cozumel.  Tlie  Totonacs,  finding 
their  deities  incapable  of  preventing  or  even  punishing  this  profanation  of 
their  shrines,  conceived  a  mean  opinion  of  their  power  compared  with  that 
of  the  mysterious  and  formidable 'strangers,”  (fee.''* 

We  have  furnished  these  two  examples  of  the  alleged  attempt  by  the 
Spaniards  to  force  conversion  on  the  natives,  because  they  are  the 
principal,  certainly  the  strongest  instances  of  the  kind  on  record.  But 
will  not  the  candid  reader  admit,  that  the  hideous  rites  and  loathsome 
human  sacrifices  so  common  among  the  Aztecs,  greatly  palliated,  if  they 
did  not  wholly  excuse,  these  strong  measures  ?  Did  not  the  event  prove, 
that  this  was  the  most  effectual  means  for  bringing  about  the  permanent 
conversion  of  the  natives  ?  Who,  for  example,  would  blame  the  English 
government,  should  it,  even  by  forcible  means,  prevent  the  hideous  car  of 
Juggernaut  from  annually  crushing  its  stated  number  of  victims?  Or 
rather,  who  that  has  a  soul  and  loves  Christianity  does  not  execrate  the 
‘^elfish  policy  of  England,  which  still  permits  that  bloody  and  hideous 

1  i,  P  ‘iTl.  2  Ibid,  pp.  271-2  3  Ibid.  p.  36a 


THE  RELIGIOUS  POINT  OF  VIEW. 


287 


wors  .ip?  Had  the  English,  instead  of  the  Spaniards,  conquered  Mexico, 
the  horrid  human  sacrifices  would,  in  all  probability,  still  continue  to  be 
offered  up  in  hundreds  of  thousands  every  year  throughout  the  whole 
land  of  Anahuae  ! 

We  said  that  the  Catholic  missionaries,  who  accompanied  the  expedition 
of  the  Conquest,  uniformly  opposed  every  species  of  violence  towards 
either  the  bodies  or  the  souls  of  the  natives.  There  is  no  exception  to 
this  remark,  the  truth  of  which  we  will  now  briefly  establish  on  the 
authority  of  Mr.  Prescott  himself.  That  such  was  the  course  of  the 
benevolent  Las  Casas  and  of  his  brother  Dominicans,  needs  no  proof,  other 
than  what  has  been  already  given.  Mr.  Prescott  furnishes  us  with  copious 
extracts  from  the  writings  of  Las  Casas,  developing  his  opinion  as  to  the 
proper  manner  of  proceeding  in  the  conversion  of  the  Indians :  * 

“  The  only  way  of  doing  this,”  he  says,  “is  by  long,  assiduous,  and 
faithful  preaching,  until  the  heathen  shall  gather  some  ideas  of  the  true 
nature  of  the  Deity,  and  of  the  doctrines  they  are  to  embrace.  Above  all, 
the  lives  of  the  Christians  should  be  such  as  to  exemplify  the  truth  of 
these  doctrines,  that  seeing  this,  the  poor  Indian  may  glorify  the  Father, 
and  acknowledge  Him  who  has  such  worshipers  for  the  true  and  only 
God.” 

But  the  missionary,  who  exercised  the  greatest  influence  in  softening 
the  horrors  of  the  Conquest,  and  in  checking  the  headlong  zeal  of  Cortes 
and  his  associates,  was  the  great  and  good  father  Bartolom6  de  Olmedo. 
His  course  was  uniform.  His  voice  was  always  for  mercy  and  mildness. 
Mr.  Prescott  fully  sustains  us  in  this  assertion.  He  says : 

“  It  was  fortunate  for  Cortes  that  Olmedo  was  notone  of  those  frantic  (!) 
friars,  who  would  have  fanned  his  fiery  temper  on  such  occasions  into  a 
blaze.  It  might  have  had  a  most  disastrous  influence  on  his  fortunes  ; 
for  he  held  all  temporal  consequences  light  in  comparison  with  the  great 
work  of  conversion.  .  .  But  Olmedo  belonged  to  that  class  of  benevolent 
missionaries — of  whom  the  Homan  Catholic  Church,  to  its  credit,  has 
furnished  many  examples — who  rely  on  spiritual  weapons  for  the  great 
work,  inculcating  those  doctrines  of  love  and  mercy  which  can  best  touch 
the  sensibilities  and  win  the  aflections  of  their  rude  audience.  These, 
indeed,  are  the  true  weapons  of  the  Church,  the  weapons  employed  in  the 
primitive  ages,  by  which  it  has  spread  its  peaceful  banners  over  the 
farthest  regions  of  the  globe. 

In  another  place,  he  draws  the  following  beautiful  sketch  of  the  character 
of  Olmedo : 

“In  the  course  of  our  narrative,  we  have  had  occasion  to  witness  more 
than  once  the  good  effects  of  the  interposition  of  Father  Olmedo.  Indeed, 
it  is  scarcely  too  much  to  say,  that  his  discretion  in  spiritual  matters 
contributed  as  essentially  to  the  success  of  the  expedition,  as  did  the 
sagacity  and  courage  of  Cortes  in  temporal.  He  was  a  true  disciple  of 
the  school  of  Las  Casas.  His  heart  was  unscathed  by  that  fiery  fanaticism  ^ 
which  sears  and  hardens  whatever  it  touches.  It  melted  with  the  warm 
glow  of  Christian  charity.  He  had  come  out  to  the  new  world  as  a 
missionary  among  the  heathen,  and  he  shrank  from  no  sacrifice,  but  that 


1  Voi.  iii,  Appendix  No  6,  and  vol.  i,  p.  272— note. 


2  Vol.  i,  pp.  403-4. 


288 


Prescott’s  conquest  of  Mexico. 


of  the  welfare  of  the  poor  benighted  flock  to  whom  he  had  consecrated  his 
days.  If  he  had  followed  the  banners  of  the  warrior,  it  was  to  mitigate 
the  ferocity  of  war,  and  to  turn  the  triumphs  of  the  cross  to  a  good  account 
for  the  natives  themselves,  by  the  spiritual  labors  of  conversion.  He 
afforded  the  uncommon  example,  not  to  have  been  looked  for  certainly  in 
a  Spanish  monk  of  the  sixteenth  century  (!)  —  of  enthusiasm  controlled 
by  reason,  a  quickening  zeal  tempered  by  the  mild  spirit  of  toleration.” 

Jeronimo  de  Aquilar  was  another  of  those  benevolent  missionaries,  who 
accompanied  the  expedition  of  the  Conquest,  who  contributed  greatly  to 
its  success,  and  who  by  his  mildness  and  virtues  exercised  a  most 
humanizing  influence  on  its  destinies.  He  had  been  for  eight  years  a 
captive  among  the  natives  of  Yucatan,  and,  after  having  been  rescued  by 
the  Spaniards,  he  rendered  them  invaluable  services  in  the  capacity  of 
interpreter.  Mr.  Prescott  gives  the  following  account  of  the  virtues  he 
manifested  during  his  long  captivity : 

Aquilar  .  .  .  fell  into  the  hands  of  a  powerful  cazique  who,  though 
he  spared  his  life,  treated  him  at  first  with  great  rigor.  The  patience  of 
the  captive,  however,  and  his  singular  humility,  touched  the  better  feelings 
of  the  chieftain,  who  would  have  persuaded  Aquilar  to  take  a  wife  among 
his  people,  but  the  ecclesiastic  steadily  refused,  in  obedience  to  his  vows. 
This  admirable  constancy  excited  the  distrust  of  the  cazique,  who  put  his 
virtue  to  a  severe  test  by  various  temptations,  and  much  of  the  same  sort 
as  those  with  which  the  devil  is  said  to  have  assailed  St.  Anthony.  From 
all  these  fiery  trials,  however,  like  his  ghostly  predecessor,  he  came  out 
unscorched.  Continence  is  too  rare  and  difficult  a  virtue  with  barbarians, 
not  to  challenge  their  veneration,  and  the  practice  of  it  has  made  more 
than  one  sainP  in  the  old  as  well  as  the  new  world.  Aquilar  was  now 
entrusted  with  the  care  of  his  master’s  household  and  his  numerous  wives. 
He  was  a  man  of  discretion  as  well  as  virtue,  and  liis  counsels  were  found 
so  salutary,  that  he  was  consulted  on  all  important  matters.  In  short, 
Aquilar  became  a  great  man  among  the  Indians.”^ 

Besides  the  two  missionaries  just  named,  there  accompanied  the  Con¬ 
quest  two  others  of  a  kindred  spirit :  Father  Juan  Diaz,  the  intimate  friend 
of  Olmedo;  and  Father  Gomara,  the  chaplain  of  Cortes,  and  subsequently 
one  of  the  most  famous  chroniclers  of  the  expedition.  These  good  men 
both  labored  with  unremitting  zeal,  not  only  for  the  conversion  of  the 
natives,  but  also  for  the  spiritual  welfare  of  the  Spanish  army.  And 
though  they  could  not  repress  every  moral  disorder,  yet  were  they  cheered, 
on  witnessing  the  eminently  religious  spirit  and  the  piety  of  the  soldiers 
under  their  spiritual  charge.  Never  was  there,  perhaps,  an  army  animated 
with  a  more  lively  faith  in  an  all-directing  Providence,  or  more  regular  in 
prayer  and  other  religious  duties.  They  were  in  the  habit  of  assisting  at 
the  holy  sacrifice  of  the  Mass  every  morning,  no  matter  what  or  how 
critical  the  condition  in  which  they  found  themselves.  “  This  punctual 
^  performance  of  Mass  by  the  army,”  says  Mr.  Prescott,  “in  storm  and  in 
sunshine,  by  day  and  by  night,  among  friends  and  enemies,  draws  forth  a 
warm  eulogium  from  the  arch-episcopal  editor  of  Cortes.”^ 

1  Vol  i,  pp.  480-1,  2  None  of  them  Protestants.  3  Ibid.  pp.  274-5. 

4  Vol.  iii,  p.  137 — note.  The  historian  in  intimating  that  Mass  was  sometimes  celebrated  ‘•by 
night,”  does  not  give  the  true  sense  of  the  passage  which  he  quotes  from  Archbishop  Lorenzana,  who 


THE  RELIGIOUS  POINT  OF  VIEW. 


289 


Did  difficulties  and  dangers  encompass  the  little  Spartan  band  of  Con¬ 
querors;  were  the  soldiers,  exhausted  with  fatigue  and  bleeding  with 
wounds,  on  the  point  of  falling  into  the  hands  of  myriads  of  enemies 
panting  to  pour  out  their  blood  on  the  fatal  stone  of  sacrifice ;  did  all 
human  succor  seem  to  be  cut  off; — they  raised  their  imploring  hands  to 
heaven  in  fervent  supplication  ;  nor  was  heaven  ever  deaf  to  their  prayers  ! 
Did  victory  perch  on  their  banners;  —  they  sent  forth  the  solemn  Te 
Deum  in  thanksgiving  to  God  !  No  one  who  has  read  attentively  the 
liistory  of  the  Conquest  in  the  original  authors,  can  fail  to  remark  this 
peculiarly  religious  character  of  the  Conquerors.  The  dispatches  of 
Cortes  breathe  this  spirit  from  beginning  to  end:  honest  Bernal  Diaz’s 
Histor}'",  and  Gomara’s  Chronicle  of  the  Conquest,  as  well  as  the  works 
of  almost  all  the  other  historians  of  the  expedition,  are  full  of  this  same 
spirit.  Even  the  cold  and  polished  Mr.  Prescott,  much  as  he  hates  the 
religion  of  the  Conquerors,  sometimes  enters  into  and  does  justice  to  their 
reliuious  feelino-s  and  even  shares  somewhat  in  their  enthusiasm  as 
soldiers  of  the  cross.  We  must  confine  ourselves  to  two  or  three  extracts 
on  this  subject,  which  will  also  be  pretty  good  specimens  of  the  style  and 
manner  of  the  historian. 

In  no  part  of  Anahuac,  as  we  have  seen,  did  the  Spaniards  have  to 
encounter  more  desperate  difficulties  and  perils  than  in  their  many  fierce 
contests  with  the  brave  and  warlike  Tlascalans.  In  vain  did  they  triumph, 
time  and  again,  over  these  indomitable  enemies:  after  each  dearly  bought 
victory,  the  fierce  Tlascalans  came  back  with  fresh  troops  and  renewed 
courage  to  the  conflict,  stunning  the  ears  of  the  exhausted  and  crippled 
Spaniards  with  their  terrible  war-cry,  and  threatening  them  with  the  awful 
menace,  “that  their  flesh  should  be  hewn  from  their  bodies  for  sacrifice 
to  the  gods.”  In  the  midst  of  these  awful  difficulties,  the  Spaniards  had 
need  of  all  their  faith  and  chivalrous  heroism,  as  soldiers  of  the  cross  : 

“  This  bold  defiance  fell  heavily  on  the  ears  of  the  Spaniards,  not 
prepared  for  so  pertinacious  a  spirit  in  their  enemy.  They  had  had  ample 
proof  of  his  courage  and  formidable  prowess.  They  were  now,  in  their 
crippled  condition,  to  encounter  him  with  a  still  more  terrible  array  of 
numbers.  The  war,  too,  from  the  horrible  fate  witli  wliich  it  menaced  the 
vanquished,  wore  a  peculiarly  gloomy  aspect,  that  pressed  heavily  on  their 
spirits.  ‘  We  feared  death,’  says  the  lion-hearted  Diaz,  with  his  usual 
simplicity,  ‘for  we  were  men.’  There  was  scarcely  one  in  the  army,  that 
did  not  confess  himself  that  night  to  the  Reverend  Father  Olmedo,  who 
was  occupied  nearly  the  whole  of  it,  with  administering  absolution,  or  the 
other  blessed  offices  of  the  Church.  Armed  with  the  holy  sacraments, 
the  Catholic  soldier  lay  tranquilly  down  to  rest,  prepared  for  any  fate  that 
mitrht  betide  him  under  the  banner  of  the  cross.”  ‘ 

The  creation  of  a  fleet  on  the  lakes  surrounding  the  great  capital  of  the 
Aztecs,  was,  perhaps,  the  master-stroke  of  policy  of  the  entire  expedition 

only  says,  that  though  the  Spaniards  “  labored  day  and  night,  yet  Mass  was  never  omitted,  in  order 
that  the  whole  work  might  be  atrributed  to  God.’* — Ku  el  campo,  en  una  calzada,  entre  eiiemigo<!, 
trabajando  dia  y  noche,  niinoa  se  omitia  la  Missa,  paraque  t<-da  la  obra  se  aciribiiyesse  a  Dioa  ’’ 

1  Vol.  i,  pp.  436-7. 


290  Prescott’s  CONQUEST  OF  MEXICO. 

Mr.  Prescott  gives  the  following  fine  description  of  the  religious  ceremo¬ 
nies  accompanying  the  launching  of  the  brigantines  composing  this  gallant 
little  squadron, —  the  first  fitted  out  in  the  new  world  : 

“  Cortes  was  resolved  that  so  auspicious  an  event  should  be  celebrated 
with  due  solemnity.  On  the  28tli  of  April,  the  troops  were  drawn  up 
under  arms,  and  the  whole  population  of  Tezcuco  assembled  to  witness 
the  ceremon.y.  Mass  was  performed,  and  every  man  in  the  army,  together 
with  the  General,  confessed  and  received  the  sacrament.  Prayers  were 
offered  up  by  Father  Olmedo,  and  a  benediction  invoked  on  the  little 
navy,  the  first — worthy  of  the  name — ever  launched  on  American  - 
waters.  The  signal  was  given  by  the  firing  of  a  cannon,  when  the  vessels 
dropping  down  the  canal,  one  after  another,  reached  the  lake  in  good 
order ;  and,  as  they  emerged  on  its  ample  bosom,  with  music  sounding, 
and  the  royal  ensign  of  Castile  proudly  floating  from  their  masts,  a  shout  of 
admiration  arose  from  the  countless  multitudes  of  spectators,  which  mingled 
with  the  roar  of  artillery  and  musketry  from  the  vessels  and  the  shore  ! 

It  was  a  novel  spectacle  to  the  simple  natives  ;  and  they  gazed  with 
wonder  on  the  gallant  ships,  which,  fluttering  like  sea-birds  on  their 
snowy  pinions,  bounded  lightly  over  the  waters,  as  if  rejoicing  in  their 
element.  It  touched  the  stern  hearts  of  the  Conquerors^ with  a  glow  of 
rapture,  and,  as  they  felt  that  heaven  had  blessed  their  undertaking,  they 
broke  forth  by  general  accord  into  the  -noble  anthem  of  the  Te  Deum.”  * 

We  close  our  extracts  on  this  subject  with  the  passage,*  in  which  our 
'historian  finely  describes  the  thanksgiving  after  the  glorious  termination 
of  the  siege  by  the  fall  of  Tenochtitlan.  Intoxicated  with  their  splendid 
victory,  the  Spanish  soldiers  were  at  first  inclined  to  give  way  to  inordinate 
rejoicing  ;  but  soon,  at  the  voice  of  Father  Olmedo,  their  enthusiastic 
jubilee  was  made  to  assume  a  religious  character : 

Loud  and  long  was  their  revelry,  which  was  carried  to  such  an  excess, 
as  provoked  the  animadversion  of  Father  Olmedo,  who  intimated  that  this 
was  not  the  fitting  way  to  testify  their  sense  of  the  favors  shown  them  by 
the  Almighty.  Cortes  admitted  the  justice  of  the  rebuke,  but  craved 
some  indulgence  for  a  soldier’s  license  in  the  hour  of  victory.  The 
following  day  was  appointed  for  the  commemoration  of  their  successes  in 
a  more  suitable  manner.  A  procession  of  the  whole  army  was  then 
formed,  with  Father  Olmedo  at  its  head.  ■  The  soiled  and  tattered  banners 
of  Castile,  which  had  waved  over  many  a  field  of  battle,  now  threw  their 
shadows  on  the  peaceful  array  of  the  soldiery,  as  they  slowly  moved 
along  rehearsing  the  litany,  and  displaying  the  image  of  the  Virgin  and 
“the  blessed  symbol  of  man’s  redemption.  The  Reverend  Father  pro¬ 
nounced  a  discourse,  in  which  he  briefly  reminded  the  troops  of  their 
cause  of  thankfulness  to  Providence  for  conducting  them  safe  through 
their  long  and  perilous  pilgrimage  ;  and,  dwelling  on  the  responsibility 
incurred  by  their  present  position,  he  besought  them  not  to  abuse  the 
■rights  of  conquest,  hut  to  treat  the  unfortunate  Indians  with  humanity. 
The  sacrament  was  then  administered  to  the  commander-in-chief  and  the 
.principal  cavaliers,  and  the  services  concluded  with  a  solemn  thanksgiving 
to  the  God  of  battles,  who  had  enabled  them  to  carry  the  banner  of  the 
cross  triumphant  over  this  barbaric  empire.”^ 

1  Vol.  iii,  pp.  87,  88. 

2  Vol.  iii,  pp.213,  214.  Those  wiio  may  wi.sh  to  see  more  on  this  branch  of  the  subject  are  referred 
to  the  following  among  many  other  passages  of  our  author  ;  vol.  i,  pp.  284,  287,  470,  473;  vol.  ii  pp 
163,  236,  257  ;  and  vol.  iii,  pp.  143.  104,  151,  &o 


the  religious  point  of  view. 


291 


We  have  already  seen  what  was  the  character  of  the  missionary 
pioneers  who  accompanied  the  expedition  of  the  Conquest ;  taming  its 
ferocity,  or  turning  away  its  mitigated  horrors  from  the  poor,  stricken, 
and  vanquished  natives.  We  have  seen  how  the  banner. of  the  cross, 
preceding  or  planted  by  the  side  of  that  of  earthly  conquest,  elevated  the 
character,  and  subdued  the  violence  of  the  latter.  We  must  now  briefly 
treat  of  the  Catholic  missionaries  who  labored  among  the  Indians,  during 
the  years  immediately  following  the  Conquest.  For  the  spirit  which 
animated  them,  for  their  unquenchable  zeal  to  promote  the  salvation  of 
the  natives,  and  for  the  eminent  success  which  crowned  their  labors,  we 
would  ask  no  better  witness  than  the  deeply  prejudiced,  though  highly 
accomplished  Mr.  Prescott.  Having  space  for  but  little  commentary,  we 
shall  confine  ourselves  almost  entirely  to  his  unexceptionable  testimony  ; 
from  which  it  will  appear  that  Father  Olmedo  was  not  alone, in  the 
inculcation  and  practice  of  every  Christian  and  priestly  virtue.  Speaking 
of  the  interposition  of  Cortes  to  obtain  additional  missionaries  from  Spain, 
our  author  says : 

“  Whatever  disregard  he  may  have  shown  to  the  political  rights  of  the 
natives,  Cortes  manifested  a  commendable  solicitude  for  their  spiritual 
welfare.  He  requested  the  emperor  to  send  out  holy  men  to  the  country; 
not  bishops  and  pampered  prelates,  who  too  often  squandered  the  substance 
of  the  Church  in  riotous  living,  but  godly  persons,  members  of  religious 
fraternities,  whose  lives  miglit  be  a  fitting  commentary  on  their  teaching. 
Thus  only,  he  adds, —  and  the  remark  is  worthy  of  note, —  can  they 
exercise  any  influence  over  the  natives,  who  have  been  accustomed  to  see 
the  least  departure  from  morals  in  their  own  priesthood  punished  with  the 
utmost  rigor,  of  the  law.  In  obedience  to  these  suggestions,  twelves 
Franciscan  friars  embarked  for  New  Spain,  which  they  reached  early 
in  1524.”  ' 

Of  their  character  and  reception  in  Mexico,  he  speaks  as  follows  : 

“They -were  men  of  unblemished  piety  of  life,  nourished  with  the 
learning  of  the  cloister,  and,  like  many  others  whom  the  Romish  (!) 
Church  has  sent  forth  on  such  apostolic  missions,  counted  all  personal 
sacrifices  as  Utile  in  the  sacred  cause  to  which  they  were  devoted.  The 
presence  of  the  reverend  fathers  in  the  country  was  greeted  with  general 
rejoicing.  The  inhabitants  of  the  towns  through  which  they  passed  came 
out  in  a  body  to  welcome  them ;  processions  were  formed  of  the  natives 
bearing  wax  tapers  in  their  hands,  and  the  bells  of  the  churches  rung  out 
a  joyous  peal  in  honor  of  their  arrival.  Houses  of  refreshment  were 
provided  along  their  route  to  the  capital ;  and  when  they  entered  it,  they 
were  met  by  a  brilliant  cavalcade  of  the  principal  cavaliers  and  citizens, 
with  Cortes  at  their  head.  The  General  dismounting,  and  bending  one 
knee  to  the  ground,  kissed  the  robes  of  Father  Martin  of  Valencia,  the 
principal  of  the  fraternity.  Tlie  natives,  filled  with  amazement  at  the 
viceroy’s  humiliation  before  men  whose  naked  feet  and  tattered  garments 
gave  them  the  aspect  of  mendicants,  henceforth  regarded  them  as  beings 
of  a  superior  nature.  Tlie  Indian  chronicler  of  Tlascala  does  not  conceal 
his  admiration  of  this  edifying  condescension  of  Cortes,  which  he  pro¬ 
nounces  ‘  one  of  the  most  heroical  acts  of  his  life.’”^ 

1  Vol.  iii,  pp.  364-5. 


2  Ibid.  pp.  260-6. 


292 


PRESCOTT'S  CO-N  QUEST  OF  MEXICO. 


Of  the  labors  and  success  of  these  excellent  missionaries  our  historian 
says : 

The  missionaries  lost  no  time  in  the  good  work  of  conversion.  They 
began  their  preaching  through  interpreters,  until  they  had  acquired  a 
competent  knowledge  of  the  language  themselves.  They  opened  schools  • 
andi  founded  colleges^  in  which  the  native  youth  were  instructed  in  profane 
as  well  as  Christian  learning.  The  ardor  of  the  Indian  neophyte  emulated 
that  of  his  teacher.  In  a  few  years  every  vestige  of  tlie  primitive  Teocallis 
was  elfaced  from  the  land.  The  uncouth  idols  of  the  country,  and  unhap¬ 
pily  the  hierOglyphical  manuscripts,  shared  the  same  fate.  Yet  the 
missionary  and  the  convert  did  much  to  repair  these  losses  by  their 
copious  accounts  of  the  Aztec  institutions,  collected  from  the  most 
authentic  sources.’" 

We  may  here  remark,  that,  but  for  the  indefatigable  labors  of  Father 
Sahagun,  and  of  other  Catholic  missionary  antiquaries,  we  would,  in  all 
probability,  now  have  no  account  whatever  of  the  Aztec  institutions. 
Had  they  not,  with  the  aid  of  the  Indian  converts,  deciphered  the  pictorial 
writings  of  the  Mexicans,  what  modern  antiquary  would  now  be  able  to 
unfold  their  meaning  ?  Has  one  even  attempted  it  with  any  thing  like 
success  ?  That  all  the  Aztec  manuscripts  have  not  perished,  is  manifest 
from  the  large  collections  to  which  Lord  Kingsborough  had  access,  and 
from  those  still  preserved  in  the  museum  of  the  Propaganda  at  Rome,  and 
in  other  places.  But  has  the  world  grown  much  wiser,  on  the  subject  of 
the  Aztec  antiquities,  from  perusing  the  insignes  nugoe  which  cover  the 
splendid  pages  of  Lord  Kingsborough’s  work  ?  Of  Father  Sahagun,  the 
greatest  of  all  the  Mexican  antiquaries,  Mr.  Prescott  speaks  as  follows : 

^  “  Father  Sahagun,  who  has  done  better  service  in  this  way  than  others 

of  his  order,  describes  with  simple  brevity  the  rapid  work  of  demolition 
(of  the  Aztec  Teocallis,  stained  with  the  blood  of  human  victims).  ‘We 
took  tlie  children  of  the  caziques,’  he  says,  ‘into  our  schools,  where  we 
taught  them  to  read,  write,  and  to  chant.  The  children  of  the  poorer 
natives  were  brought  together  in  the  court-yard,  and  there  instructed  in 
the  Christian  faith.  After  our  teaching,  one  or  two  brethren  took  the 
pupils  to  some  neighboring  Teocalli,  and,  by  working  at  it  for  a  few  days, 
they  levelled  it  to  the  ground.  In  this  way  they  demolished,  in  a  short 
time,  all  the  Aztec  temples,  great  and  small,  so  that  not  a  vestige  of  them 
remained.’  ”  ^ 

What  modern  Christian  antiquary  will  drop  a  tear  of  regret  over  those 
demolished  temples,  dedicated  to  an  inhuman  worship  ?  Was  not  their 
destruction  absolutely  necessary,  to  eradicate  from  the  minds  of  the 
converts  all  temptations  to  revert  to  their  antiquated  superstitions  ?  Totally 
unfitted  for  the  purposes  of  the  Christian  worship,  they  did  but  burden  the 
soil  with  their  cumbrous  and  misshapen  bulk  ;  and  their  fall  was  a  neces¬ 
sary  preliminary  to  the  introduction  of  Christianity.  And  yet  there  are 
found  many  kind  and  sympathetic  souls,  even  among  Christians,  who 
bitterly  lament  the  fall  of  the  Aztec  Teocallis!  Would  these  men  :  would 
the  polished  Mr.  Prescott,  weep,  if  the  hideous  and  blood-stained  car  of 
Juggernaut  were  dashed  into  fragments?  Would  their  antiquarian,  in 
1  Vol.  iii,  pp.  266-7.  2  Ibid— nor<. 


) 


THE  RELIGIOUS  POINT  OF  VIEW.  29& 

this  case,  get  the  better  of  their  Christian  zeal  ?  We  are  really  curious 
to  know  what  these  enlightened  gentlemen  would  have  said,  had  the 
English  government  possessed  Christianity  enough  to  abolish  the  bloody 
and  inhuman  worship  prevalent  in  India. 

Of  the  astonishing  success  which  crowned  the  labors  of  the  mission¬ 
aries  among  the  Mexicans,  our  author  speaks  as  follows : 

“  The  business  of  conversion  went  on  prosperously  among  the  several 
tribes  of  the  great  Nahuatlac  family.  In  about  twenty  years  from  the 
first'advent  of  the  missionaries,  one  of  their  body  (Father  Toribio)  could 
make  the  pious  vaunt,  that  nine  millions  of  converts — -a  number  probably 
exceeding  the  population  of  the  country  —  had  been  admitted  within  the 
Christian  fold!”^ 

The  intelligent  reader  is  left  to  decide  between  the  “probable” 
conjecture  of  our  modern  historian,  and  the  positive  testimony  of  a  grave 
cotemporary  writer,  of  undoubted  veracity,  who  relates  what  he  himself 
saw,  and  in  what  he  was  a  prominent  actor.  Even  allowing  that  the 
fervid  zeal  of  the  good  missionary  led  him  into  some  exaggeration,  it  will 
still  remain  certain,  that  the  number  of  converts  was  prodigious  and 
almost  staii-ofering  belief. 

How  are  we  to  explain  this  remarkable  fact  ?  Can  it  be  accounted  for 
on  merely  human  principles ;  or  must  *we  have  recourse  to  a  divine 
interposition?  Were  the  natives  induced  to  embrace  Christianity  in  such 
vast  numbers,  by  natural  or  by  supernatural  causes  ?  If  the  former,  how 
then  are  we  to  explain  the  remarkable  phenomenon  ?  If  the  latter,  then 
is  it  not  apparent,  that  the  Roman  Catholic  religion,  thus  wonderfully 
blessed  by  God,  and  impressed  with  the  seal  of  His  approbation,  is  that 
true  religion,  which  Christ  died  to  establish,  and  whose  ministry  He 
divinely  commissioned  “to  teach  all  nations  ?” 

We  will  devote  the  remainder  of  this  paper  —  already  long  enough  — 
to  a  brief  investigation  of  this  important  matter ;  and  we  regret  that  our 
limits  will  necessarily  compel  us  to  pass  over  many  other  things,  connected 
with  the  Religious  Point  of  View  of  the  Conquest,  upon  which  we  had 
originally  intended  to  animadvert.  Such  is  among  many  other  things, 
the  peculiarly  religious  character  of  Cortes,  which  stood  forth  strong  even 
in  death 

Mr.  Prescott’s  theory  for  explaining  the  conversion  of  the  natives  to 
Catholic  Christianity  is  surely  simple  enough.  It  strongly  reminds  us  of 
the  theory  of  another  very  polished  gentleman.  Gibbon,  for  explaining  the 
early  progress  of  Christianity  among  the  Greeks  and  Romans.  Both  of 
these  philosophers  wholly  discard  miracles  and  every  thing  supernatural  ; 
and  both  draw  pretty  strongly  on  their  fancies  for  the  natural  causes, 
which  they  think,  sufficiently  explain  the  phenomenon.  Tiie  following 
passage,  to  a  portion  of  wdiich  we  directed  attention  in  our  first  paper, 
appears  to  contain  the  gist  of  Mr.  Prescott’s  theory  for  explaining  the 
inversion  of  the  Aztecs: 

1  Vol.  iii,  p  267. 

2  See  an  account  of  his  death,  and  of  his  last  will  and  testament,  in  I’rescott,  vol.  iii. 

2D2  ' 


294  Prescott’s  conquest  op  Mexico. 


“  The  Aztec  worship  was  remarkable  for  its  burdensome  ceremonial, 
and  prepared  its  votaries  for  the  pomp  and  splendors  of  the  Romish  (!) 
ritual.  It  was  not  difficult  to  pass  from  the  fasts  and  festivals  of  the  one 
religion,  to  the  fasts  and  festivals  of  the  other;  to  transfer  their  homage 
from  the  fantastic  idols  of  their  own  creation  to  the  beautiful  forms  in 
sculpture  and  in  painting  which  decorated  the  Christian  cathedral.'’  ' 

We  protest  with  all  our  energy  against  this  false  and  odious  parallel, 
between  two  systems  of  religion  as  difterent  from  each  other  as  light  is 
from  darkness.  What !  Compare  the  venerable  religion  of  three-fourths 
of  the  Christian  world,  embracing  too  the  most  polished  and  enlightened 
nations  of  the  earth  ; —  compare  the  religion,  which  was  the  only  Chris¬ 
tian  one  on  the  face  of  the  earth  for  the  first  fifteen  hundred  years  of 
Christianity;  —  compare  the  religion  which  preserved  the  Bible,  which 
taught  all  the  nations  Christianity,  which  was  ever  the  fruitful  mother  of 
Christians  and  the  parent  of  Christian  civilization ;  —  compare  the 
religion  which  has  been  the  teeming  mother  of  republics  and  of  heroes  ;  — 
compare  the  religion  of  such  men  as  Fenelon,  Xavier,  De  Sales,  Borromeo, 
Cheverus,  Olmedo,  and  thousands  of  other  bright  ornaments  of  human 
nature  and  of  Christian  society  ;  —  compare  this  venerable  religion,  with 
the  impure,  the  abominable,  th^  inhuman,  the  blood-stained,  the  hideous 
superstition  of  the  degraded  Aztecs  !  0  Mr.  Prescott  !  smooth,  polished, 

refined  Mr.  Prescott !  How  sadly  has  thy  prejudice  against  the  religion 
of  thy  fathers  betrayed  thee  !  Cast  of!'  that  dark  cloud,  which  envelopes 
an  otherwise  beautiful,  clear,  and  noble  intellect.  It  is  wholly  unworthy 
of  thee,  and  will  add  nothing  to  the  brightness  of  thy  posthumous  fame. 

Was  it  then  so  easy  a  thing  for  the  Aztecs  to  renounce  their  time-hon¬ 
ored  worship,  intimately  connected  as  it  was  with  their  early  history,  and 
associated  with  the  most  brilliant  deeds  of  their  heroes,  and  the  glory  of 
their  empire  ?  Was  it  so  easy  for  them  to  trample  upon  rites,  so  closely 
intertwined  with  their  national  manners  and  customs  ;  with  their  warlike 
displays,  and  with  their  peaceful  pageants  and  festivals  ;  with  their  patriotic 
feelings,  and  with  their  very  existence  as  a  people  ?  Was  it  so  very  easy 
for  them  to  resign  a  religion  which  flattered  the  passions,  in  favor  of  one 
which  imposed  so  many  severe  restraints  on  them  ,  to  renounce  a  religion 
pandering  to  impurity  and  every  abomination,  in  favor  of  what  Mi\ 
Prescott,  in  this  very  passage,  called  the  unsullied  rites  of  Catholic 
Christianity  ? 

That  the  Aztecs  clung  with  great  tenacity  to  their  abominable  super¬ 
stitions  ;  that  they  could  not  be  induced  to  renounce  them  without  the 
greatest  difficulty,  Mr.  Prescott  himself  is  our  witness.  He  tells  us  of 
the  fierce  resistance  the  Spaniards  every  where  met  with,  whenever  they 
proposed  a  change  of  religion  to  the  natives  ;  he  tells  us  of  the  stern 
opposition  of  the  weak  Montezuma  ;  he  tells  us  of  the  awful  death-struggle 
of  the  Aztecs  for  their  religion  and  their  independence,  when  tliey^ 
exhibited  their  willinu'iiess  to  be  buried  under  the  ruins  of  their  besie<»:ed 

O  O 


1  Vol.  iii,  pp  267-8. 


THE  RELIGIOUS  POINT  OF  VIEW. 


295 


capital,  rather  than  yield  to  the  Conquerors ;  and  he  tells  us  how,  in  this 
last  desperate  conflict,  their  enthusiasm  was  kindled  by  the  appeals  of 
their  priests,  how  it  received  additional  warmtli  from  the  fires  wliicli 
burned  on  the  summits  of  their  Teocallis,  and  how  it  was  increased  to 
wild  fanaticism  and  absolute  madness,  by  the  sounds  which  were  sent 
forth  by  the  signal  drum  of*  the  great  temple  of  their  war-god.  And  yet, 
it  was  easy  for  them  to  renounce  all  this  superstition,  and  to  embrace  in 
its  stead  the  painful  religion  of  their  Conquerors! 

Or,  is  it  to  be  made  a  matter  of  crimination  ao-ainst  the  Catholic 
Church,  that  the  “pomp  and  splendor”  of  her  ritual  won  the  admiration 
and  captivated  the  senses  of  the  natives  ?  Is  it  her  fault,  that  the  religion 
she  teaches  possesses  more  charms  and  moj-e  winning  graces  than  the 
“cold  abstractions”  of  Protestantism;  that  it  appeals  not  only  to  the 
mind,  but  also  to  the  heart  ?  Was  it  her  fault,  that  even  the  barbarous 
Aztecs  were  compelled  to  admire  her  divine  beauty,  and  to  be  forcibly 
.struck  with  her  “  heavenly  hue  ?”  Was  it  a  fault  in  her  to  have  wisely 
tolerated,  at  least  for  a  time,  such  of  the  Aztec  national  usages  as  warred 
with  no  principle  of  her  faith,  and  to  have  proceeded  gradual’y  with  the 
civilization  of  the  natives  ?  Had  not  such  been  the  wise  mode  of 
procedure  adopted,  according  to  the  testimony  of  the  Protestant  church 
historian  Mosheim,*  by  Christian  missionaries  from  the  earliest  ages  of 
the ’Church?  Had  not  the  enlightened  Pontiff,  St.  Gregory  the  Great, 
recommended  this  same  prudent  course  of  conduct  to  St.  Augustine, 
the  apostle  of  England  ?  ^  And  had  it  no  been  adopted  in  both  cases, 
with  the  most  beneficial  results,  and  without  the  sacrifice  of  any  principle 
of  faith  ?  Was  it  any  harm  to  consecrate  to  the  service  of  the  true  God, 
in  the  “  unsullied  ”  worship  of  Catholicity,  rites  which,  liarmless  in 
themselves,  had  been  hitherto  employed  in  an  impure  and  abominable 
superstition  ?  And  is  it  probable,  as  Mr.  Prescott  insinuates,  that  the 
Catholic  missionaries,  whom  himself  represents  as  men  “  of  unblemished 
purity  of  life,”  only  sought,  in  the  conversion  of  the  natives,  to  substitute 
one  form  of  idolatry  for  another  ? 

True  it  is — and  it  makes  nothino*  at^ainst  our  aruumeht  —  that  the 
missionaries  discovered  among  the  Aztecs  many  religious  tenets  and 
observances,  which  forcibly  reminded  them  of  some  peculiar  institutions 
of  Catholicity,  and  almost  compelled  the  belief  that  their  ancestors  had 
been  originally  indoctrinated  in  Christianity.  If  they  were  right  in  this 
inference,  the  coincidences  alluded  to  aflbrd  a  strong  corroborative 
evidence  of  the  antiquity  and  divine  origin  of  those  Caiholic  doctrines. 
Besides  the  cross,  as  a  symbol  of  worship,  the  Aztecs  had  religious  rites 
which  very  nearly  resembled  the  Catholic  sacraments  of  the  holy 
eucharist  and  baptism.  Let  us  hear  Mr.  Prescott : 

“  Their  surprise  was  heightened,  when  they  witnessed  a  religious 

1  Ilisforia  Koclesiast  SjbcuI.  II,  p.  2,  c.  iv,  nota. 

2  Cf.  I, inward.  Antiquities  .Anglo-Saxon  Chnrch,  p.  24,  American  edition.  M.  Fithian,  Philadel¬ 
phia,  1841 


296 


Prescott’s  conquest  of  Mexico. 


rite  wliich  reminded  them  of  the  Christian  communion.  On  these 
occasions,  an  image  of  the  tutelary  deity  of  the  Aztecs  was  made  of  the 
flour  of  maize,  mixed  with  blood,  and,  after  consecration  by  the  priests, 
was  distributed  among  the  people,  who,  as  they  ate  it,  ‘  showed  signs  of 
humiliation  and  sorrow,  declaring  it  was  the  flesh  of  the  deity.’  ‘  How 
could  the  Roman  Catholic  fail  to  recognize  the  awful  ceremony  of 
the  eucharist?”^  ....  With  the  same  feelings,  they  witnessed  another 
ceremony,  that  of  the  Aztec  baptism  ;  in  which,  after  a  solemn  invoca¬ 
tion,  the  head  and  lips  of  the  infant  were  touched  with  water,  and  a 
name  was  given  to  it ;  while  the  goddess  Cioacoatl,  who  presided  over 
childbirth,  was  implored,  ‘that  the  sin,  which  was  given  to  us  before  the 
beginning  of  the  world,  might  not  visit  the  cluld,.but  that,  cleansed  by 
these  waters,  it  might  live  and  be  born  anew’ 

These  coincidences  were  striking  enough  ;  and  they  surely  went  far 
■->  towards  warranting  the  conclusion  of  the  missionaries.  But,  mixed  up  as 

those  Christian  rites  were,  with  the  most  abominable  superstitions 

of  a  worship  stained  with  human  gore,  they  couM  not  greatly  facilitatf 
the  adoption  by  the  natives  of  the  “unsullied  rites”  of  Catholic  Chris 
tianity.  Something  more  than  a  mere  partial  coincidence  ;  something 
more  than  mere  human  power  or  meie  human  means,  w'as  necessary  to 
bring  about,  with  such  astonishing  rapidity,  the  complete  and  general 
conversion  of  the  Aztecs.  The  finger  of  God  was  there,  as  clearly  as  it 
was  in  the  conversion  of  any  heathen  nation  that  ever  entered  tlie  Chris¬ 
tian  fold.  We  can  explain  the  phenomenon  on  no  other  principle.  The 
mere  zeal,  and  unblemished  purity,  and  devotedness  of  the  Catholic 
missionaries,  however  they  may  have  aided,  could  not,  of  themselves, 
without  the  divine  favor  and  blessing,  have  accomplished  the  work. 
Unless  God  build  the  house,  in  vain  do  they  labor  who  build  it.” 

Mr.  Prescott,  like  Gibbon  and  most  others  of  the  modern  fashionable 
historical  school,  has  a  pious  horror  of  all  miracles.  He  proceeds  on 
•  the  assumption,  that  “the  age  of  miracles  has  ceased;”  for  which 
position  there  seems  to  be  no  other  ground,  than  the  acknowledged  fact, 
that  such  wonders  have  wholly  ceased  among  Protestants  !  But  is  “  the 
right  hand  of  God  shortened  ?  ”  Or  did  Christ  set  any  limitation  as  to 
time,  to  the  numerous  promises  he  made  to  his  disciples  in  lenard  to  the 
power  conferred  on  them  for  working  miracles?  If  thei-e  be  any  truth  in 
history,  it  is  certain  that  miracles  have  been  wi’ought  in  every  age,  and 
^n  every  great  emergency  of  the  Church.  One  of  these  emergencies, 
:strongly  demanding  such  an  exhibition  of  divine  power,  is  the  conversion 
of  a  heathen  nation  to  Christianity.  Surely  then,  if  ever,  miracles  should 
be  performed  ;  and,  notwithstanding  our  historian’s  skepticism,  we  incline 
to  the  belief  that  they  were  performed  in  the  conversion  of  Mexico.  We 
'  •  will  oive  two  instances,  to  which  Mr.  Prescott  alludes  with  a  lurkinsf 

sneer,  or  with  open  unbelief. 

The  first  is  the  resurrection  of  the  sister  of  Tanzapan,  lord  of  Michuacan, 

1  I'he  author  here  quotes  Veytia,  Hist.  Autijfua,  L.  I.  c.  18;  and  Aeosta,  I.ib,  5.  c  2l. 

2  V\>1.  ill,  pp.  SJSi-o. 

3  Ibid  p  885  For  tiiis  remarkable  doctrine  of  the  Aatecs,  Mr.  Prescott  cites  the  great  antiquarv 
Bahugun.  Hist,  de  Nueva  Kspagna,  1.  vi,  c.  83. 


THE  RELIGIOUS  POINT  OF  VIEW. 


297 


after  she  liacl  been  dead  four  days.  The  fact  was  believed  by  her  brother, 
as  yet  a  heathen,  wlio,  at  her  instance,  disbanded  a  powerful  army  which 
he  had  collected  to  march  against  the  Spaniards.  It  also  commemorated 
in  the  Michuacan  Picture-Recoi-ds  ;  and  is  related  by  Ixtlilxochitl,  the 
Indian  lord  and  historian  of  Tezcuco,  who  derived  it  from  a  £<:randson  of 
Tanzapan.*  Is  such  evidence  as  this  to  be  invalidated  by  the  mere 
skeptical  doubt  of  Mr.  Prescott  ? 

The  other  miraculous  occurrence  alluded  to  took  place  at  Tlascala. 
We  will  give  it  in  the  words  of  Mr.  Prescott,  who  says  in  a  note  :  — 
“  the  miracle  is  reported  by  Herrera,  and  believed  by  Solis  :  ” — 

“  A  large  cross  was  erected  in  one  of  the  great  courts  or  squares. 
Mass  was  celebrated  every  day  in  the  presence  of  the  army  and  of  crowds 
of  natives,  who,  if  tliey  did  not  comprehend  its  full  import,  were  so  far 
edified,  that  they  learned  to  reverence  the  religion  of  their  Conquerors. 
The  direct  interposition  of  heaven,  however,  wrought  more  for  their 
conversion  than  the  best  homily  of  priest  or  soldier.  Scarcely  had  the 
Spaniards  left  the  city  —  the  tale  (!)  is  told  on  very  respectable  autliority 
—  when  a  thin,  transparent  cloud  descended  and  settled  like  a  column  on 
the  cross,  and,  wrapping  it  round  in  its  luminous  folds,  continued  to  emit 
a  soft,  celestial  radiance  through  the  night,  thus  proclaiming  the  sacred 
character  of  the  symbol,  on  which  was  shed  the  halo  of  divinity.”  ^ 

But  we  must  bring  our  remarks  to  a  close.  Few  can  have  failed  to  notice 
the  striking  coincidence,  in  point  of  time,  of  the  remarkable  defection  from 
the  ranks  of  Catholicity  in  the  old,  and  of  the  more  remarkable  additions 
to  her  numbers  in  the  new  world.  At  the  very  lime  that  the  reformation 
was  making  the  most  rapid  progress  in  Europe,  tearing  whole  nations 
from  the  bosom  of  the  Church,  and  threatening  her  with  total  destruction ; 
this  Church,  far  from  being  appalled  by  the  danger  which  menaced  her 
very  existence  at  home,  arose  in  her  heavenly  strength,  and,  indued  with 
the  vigor  of  youth,  stretched  forth  her  gigantic  arms  to  the  east  and  to  the 
west,  grasped  at  spiritual  empire  in  new  worlds  which  her  children  had 
discovered,  and  reared  in  triumph  her  glorious  banner  of  the  cross  — 
svhich  had  been  despised  at  home  —  in  the  heart  of  new  nations  and  of 
new  peoples,  who  “rose  up  and  called  her  blessed  1  ”  She  thus  became 
more  Catholic  after ^  than  she  had  been  before^  the  reformation,  so  called ! 
Her  Xaviers,  her  Olmedos,  her  Martins  of  Valencia,  and  her  other 
indefati'»-able  missionaries,  more  than  retrieved  her  losses  in  the  old 

O 

world,  by  additional  conquests  to  her  communion  in  the  new. 

So  it  had  been  in  every  great  emergency  of  her  history.  At  the  very 
periods  in  which  she  had  been  threatened  with  the  greatest  dangers,  she 
had  not  only  come  out  victorious  from  the  struggle  which  menaced  her 
very  existence,  but  she  had  acquired  new  vigor,  and  had  marched  on  to 
new  conquests  1  Who  will  say  that  the  finger  of  God  is  not  in  all  this  ? 
Who  can  explain  it  in  any  other  way,  than  by  admitting  that  a  mysterious 
Providence  watches  over  her  ;  and  that  the  God  who  said  :  “  The  gates 
OF  HELL  SHALL  NO.T  PREVAIL  AGAINST  HER,”  has  fully  redeemed  His 
promise  ?  , 

1  Prescott  admits  a.,  this,  vol.  iii,  p.  ID,  note.  2  Vol.i,  pp.  431,482. 


XV  EARLY  CATHOLIC  MISSIONS  IN  THE  NORTH¬ 
WEST 


FIRST  PAPER. — Bancroft’s  account.* 

Bancroft  as  an  historian  —  An  old  Relation  —  Catholic  missionary  zeal  —  Spirit  of  Catholic  and 
Trotestant  colonists  compared  —  Who  established  the  first  missions  in  North  America?  —  The 
Franciscans  and  Jesuits  —  The  first  Jesuit  missionaries  —  The  first  college  —  And  the  first 
hospital  —  The  Ursulines  in  Canada  —  The  mission  to  the  Hurons  —  Fathera  De  Brebeuf  and 
Daniel  —  Their  manner  of  life  —  The  chief  Ahasistari — Mission  to  the  Algonquins  —  And  to  the 
Chippewas  — “  The  New  England  Elliott  ”  —  Father  Jogues — And  Father  Bres.sani  —  Mission  among 
the  Abanakis  —  Mohawks  —  Onondagas  —  And  Cayugas  —  Extent  of  the  missions  —  Penetrating 
westward  —  Father  Marquette  — His  death  —  Subsequent  history  of  the  Jesuit  missions  —  Policy 
of  England. 

The  history  of  the  early  Catholic  missions  in  Canada  and  in  the  north¬ 
western  portion  of  the  United  States,  inimately  connected  as  it  is  with 
that  of  our  country  itself,  cannot  fail  to  awaken  the  attention  and  excite 
the  interest  of  every  American,  who  is  curious  to  investigate  the  rise  and 
progress  of  our  early  Colonies.  The  civil  history  of  the  country  cannot, 
in  fact,  be  written  without  drawing  copiously  on  the  facts  comprised  in 
its  early  religious  annals. 

Bancroft,  in  his  History  of  the  United  States,  has  devoted  an  entire 
chapter  to  this  very  interesting  subject,  so  far  as  it  came  within  his  general 
scope. .  Considering  that  he  is  a  Protestant,  he  has  certainly  been  as 
impartial  as  could  have  been  expected,  in  recounting  the  labors  of  the 
early  Catholic  missionaries  among  the  Indians  ;  and,  though  he  has  done 
them  nothing  more  than  justice.  Catholics,  who  are  usually  grateful  for 
small  favors  in  this  way,  owe  him  a  debt  of  gratitude. 

He  has  availed  himself  of  the  excellent  history  of  Charlevoix,  as  well 
as  of  the  detailed  accounts,  or  Relations,  of  the  Jesuit  missionaries  them¬ 
selves.  As  far  as  he  goes,  he  is  generally  accurate  ;  but  we  regret  that 
he  has  confined  himself  to  the  first  fifty  years  of  these  missions,  embracing 
the  period  from  1632  to  1680.  His  style  is  brilliant  and  sparkling,  but 
wanting  in  that  natural  simplicity  which  best  su  ts  historical  narratives, 
especially  those  which  treat  of  religious  subjects.  The  accounts  of  the 
Jesuit  fathers,  from  which  he  borrows  copiously,  possess  this  charming 
quality  in  an  eminent  degree.  We  have  also  detected,  here  and  there,  a 
lurking  sneer,  intended,  we  apprehend,  as  a  douceur  to  Protestant  preju-  ‘  ^ 
dice.  Yet  withal,  there  is  an  apparent  impartiality,  and  a  certain  air  of 
candor  and  liberality  pervading  this  portion  of  his  History. 

*  Bancroft’s  History  of  tho  United  States,  Vol.  iii,  Chapter  xx. 


298 


Bancroft’s  account. 


299 


Chance  lately  threw  into  our  way  one  of  the  oldest  and  most  interesting 
of  those  Relations,  to  which  the  American  historian  so  often  refers.  It  is 
a  duodecimo  volume  of  103  pages,  was  printed  at  Paris  in  1650,  and  it 
is  entitled  :  A  Relation  of  what  passed  in  the  Mission  of  the  Fathers  of 
the  Society  of  Jesus  among  the  Hurons,  a  territory  of  New  France,  in 
the  years  1648  and  1649.”‘  This  narrative  is  written  in  that  simple 
manner  and  unctious  spirit,  which  at  once  delights  and  edifies  the  reader. 
It  enters  into  the  most  minute  and  interesting  details,  furnishes  many 
thrilling  anecdotes,  and,  by  its  copiousness,  will  enable  the  reader  pf 
Bancroft  to  supply  the  deficiency  of  his  comparatively  meagre  account. 
We  shall  draw  copiously  on  this  little  work ;  but  before  we  introduce  our 
readers  to  its  interesting  contents,  we  must  rapidly  review,  and  summarily 
condense,  the  account  of  the  early  Jesuit  missions  as  given  by  the 
American  historian,  whose  authority  in  this  matter  is  surely  unexcep¬ 
tionable. 

It  is  the  glory  of  the  Catholic  Church,  to  have  been  in  all  ages  signalized 
by  successful  missionary  zeal.  From  the  day  that  her  first  minkters 
heard  the  divine  command,  “Go,  teach  all  nations,” — down  to  the  present 
time,  she  has  ever  burned  with  an  ardent  zeal  for  the  instruction  and 
salvation  of  mankind.  She  alone  has,  in  every  age,  fulfilled  this  divine 
commission  ;  she  alone  has  converted  the  nations  ;  she  alone  has  ever  been 
the  true  and  fruitful  mother  of  civilization.  After  the  lapse  of  more  than 
eighteen  hundred  years,  the  same  fire  still  glows  in  the  bosom  of  her 
missionaries,  as  warmed  the  breasts  of  the  first  apostles  of  the  Lamb. 

At  every  period  of  her  history,  her  clergy  have  been  among  the  chief 
pioneers  of  civilization.  The  Cross  always  accompanied,  sometimes  it  even 
preceded,  the  banner  of  earthly  conquest.  Zeal  for  the  salvation  of  souls 
was  the  very  life  and  soul  of  every  maritime  enterprise,  and  of  all  expedi¬ 
tions  for  conquest.  The  sword  subjected  the  bodies,  the  Cross  won  the 
hearts,  of  all  those  who  successively  entered  the  ever  widening  pale  of 
the  Christian  civilization. 

So  it  had  been  in  South,  so  it  was  also  in  North  America.  In  both, 
Catholics  had  the  honor  of  first  pioneering  the  way.  In  both,  the  Catholic 
clergy  established  the  first  missions,  and  made  the  first  proselytes  to  Chris¬ 
tianity  among  the  aboriginal  inhabitants.  The  Catholic  French  in  the 
North  were  animated  by  a  spirit  of  religious  zeal,  similar  to  that  which 
had  actuated  the  Catholic  Spaniards  in  the  more  Southern  portion  of  the 
coniineut;  Let  us  hear  what  Bancroft  testifies  on  the  subject: 

“  Religious  zeal,  not  less  than  commercial  ambition,  had  influenced 
France  to  recover  Canada ;  and  Champlain,  its  governor,  whose  imper¬ 
ishable  name  will  rival  with  posterity  the  fame  of  Smith  and  of  Hudson, 
ever  disinterested  and  compassionate,  full  of  honor  and  pi’obity,  of  ardent 
devotion  and  burninu"  zeal,  esteemed  ‘  the  salvation  of  a  soul  worth  more 
than  the  conquest  of  an  empire.’ 

1 

1  “  Uelution  d«  ce  qiii  eat  pasae  eii  la  Mission  des  Peres  de  la  Conipagnie  de  Jesus  aux  Ilurons, 
pays  de  la  Nouvelie  Fraiioe,  aux  annees  1648  et  1649.  Par.  P.  Paul  Kaguenau,  de  la  uieeme 
Couipagiiie.”  A  i  aris,  1650.  2  Vol.  iii,  p.  119. 


I 


300 


EARLY  CATHOLIC  MISSIONS. 


Again  he  says  : 

“  Thus  it  was  neither  commercial  enterprise,  nor  royal  ambition,  which 
carried  the  power  of  France  into  the  heart  of  our  continent:  the  motive 
was  religion.  Religious  enthusiasm  colonized  New-England  ;  and  re- 
lioious  enthusiasm  founded  Montreal,  made  a  conquest  of  the  wilderness 
on  tlie  upper  lah,es,  and  explored  the  Mississippi.  Puritanism  gave  New 
Eiif^'land  its  worship  and  its  schools;  the  Roman  (Catholic)  Church 
created  for  Canada  its  altars,  its  hospitals,  and  its  seminaries.”  ‘ 

The  religious  enthusiasm,  which  colonized  New-England,  was  of  a 
different  kind  altogether  from  that  which  founded  and  peopled  Canada. 
Nowhere  do  we  read,  that  the  French  Catholic  pilgrims  of  Canada  either 
enacted  blue  laws,  persecuted  each  other  for  conscience  sake,  drove  fellow 
Christians  into  the  wilderness,  or  hanged  people  for  witchcraft !  Neither 
do  we  hear  of  their  having  overreached  the  Indians,  driven  them  from 
post  to  post,  and  made  war  on  and  exterminated  them,  after  having- 
goaded  them  into  desperation  by  insufferable  exactions  !  Nor  do  we  read 
of  the  Catholic  clergy  acting  as  chaplains  to  the  armies  which  were 
marcliing  to  exterminate  the  poor  aborigines,  nor  making  long  prayers 
at  the  head  of  the  invading  troops,  on  the  eve  of  battle,  as  did  the  “godly 
Stone,”  when  the^  colonists  of  New-England  were  marching  against  the 
Pequods  of  Connecticut !  In  all  these  things,  and  in  many  more,  the 
glory  is  all  on  the  side  of  the  Puritans  ! 

Again,  the  policy  pursued  by  the  two  sets  of  colonists,  for  extending 
the  boundaries  of  their  respective  territories,  was  widely  different.  The 
Puritans  seem  to  have  thought  very  little  about  converting  and  civilizing 
the  aborigines.  Missionary  enterprise  among  them  seldom,  if  ever,  pre¬ 
ceded  shrewd  contracts  for  additional  territory,  or  expeditions  for  conquest; 
they  rarely  ever  followed  either.  The  Puritans  seem  to  have  thought 
little  about  the  bodies,  and  still  less  about  the  souls  of  the  poor  Indians. 
Their  conversion  to  Christianity  w-as  an  after  consideration;  the  acquisition 
of  their  lands  was  the  primary  object  of  Puritan  missionary  zeal. 

We  read  indeed  of  a  feeble,  and,  in  a  great  measure,  unsuccessful  effort 
of  the  Puritan  minister  John  Elliott,  to  convert  the  miserable  remnants 
of  the  Indian  tribes,  which  the  humanity  of  the  pious  pilgrims  had 
suffered  still  to  drag  o  it  a  miserable  existence  in  the  immediate  vicinity 
of  Boston.  We  read  also  of  a  most  disgraceful  attempt  made  by 
ministers  sent  from  Boston  to  break  up  the  flourishing  Catholic  missions 
established  among  the  Abenakis  of  Maine,  by  the  sainted  Catholic  mis¬ 
sionary,  Sebastian  Rasies.  Mr.  Bancroft  himself,  a  great  advocate  for 
the  Puritans,  is  our  witness  for  all  these  facts ;  to  which  we  shall  have 
occasion  to  refer  more  fully  hereafter.^ 

On  the  contrary,  the  same  historian  assures  us,  that  “the  genius  of 

Champlain . could  devise  no  method  of  building  up  the  dominion 

of  France  in  Canada,  but  by  an  alliance  with  the  Hurons,  or  of  confirming 
that  alliance  but  by  the  establishment  of  missions.”  And  he  adds  :  “  Such 
a  policy  was  congenial  to  a  Church  which  cherishes  every  member  of 

1  Vol.  iii,  p  121.  In  the  Review  of  W  ebster's  Bunker  Hill  Speech. 


Bancroft’s  account. 


301 


the  human  race,  without  regard  to  lineage  or  skin,’^  *  The  genius  of  the 
pilgrims  devised  other  means  altogether,  for  establishing  Puritan  dominion 
in  New  England.  The  policy  of  their  church,  or  churches,  seems  also 
to  have  been  very  widely  diUerent.  They  were  far  too  enlightened  to 
cherish  the  tawny-skinned  Indians :  their  delicate  nerves  were  even 
greatly  shocked  at  the  bare  sight  of  an  ugly  old  woman,  who  happened 
to  have  a  mole  on  her  skin, —  a  certain  indication  that  she  was  a  witch! 
The  sublime  sentiment  of  Ciiamplain,  “who  esteemed  the  salvation  of  a 
soul  worth  more  than  the  conquest  of  an’  empire,”  seems  never  to  have 
entered  their  narrow  minds  1 

The  glory  of  having  discovered  America,  and  of  having  established 
the  first  colonies,  the  first  missions,  the  first  college,  and  the  first  chari¬ 
table  institutions  in  North  America,  belongs  entirely  to  the  Catholic 
religion.  Mr.  Bancroft’s  authority  bears  us  out  in  all  these  assertions. 
The  Franciscans  were  the  first  Catholic  missionaries,  and  the  first  of  any 
kind,  who  labored  among  the  Indian  tribes  of  North  America.^  As  early 
as  the  year  1615,  we  find  Franciscan  missionaries  among  the  Indians  of 
Maine.  Our  historian  says  : 

“  The  first  permanent  efforts  of  French  enterprise,  in  colonizing  America, 
preceded  any  permanent  English  settlement  north  of  the  Potomac.  Years 
before  the  pilgrims  anchored  within  Cape  Cod,  the  Roman  (Catholic) 
Church  had  been  planted,  by  missionaries  from  France,  in  the  eastern 
moiety  of  Maine  ;  and  Le  Caron,  an  unambitiDus  Franciscan,  had 
peneti-ated  the  land  of  the  Mohawks,  had  passed  to  the  north  in  the 
hunting-grounds  of  the  Wyaiidots,  and,  bound  by  his  vows  to  the  life  of 
a  beggar,  had,  on  foot,  or  paddling  a  bark  canoe,  gone  onward  and  still 
onward,  taking  alms  of  the  savages,  till  he  reached  the  rivers  of  Lake 
Huron.  While  Quebec  contained  scarce  fifty  inhabitants,  priests  of  the 
Franciscan  order  —  Le  Caron,  Viel,  Sagard — had  labored  for  years  as 
missionaries  in  Upper  Canada,  or  made  their  way  to  the  neutral  Huron 
tribe  that  dwelt  on  the  waters  of  the  Niagara.”  ^ 

In  1632,  the  “  Franciscans  having,  as  a  mendicant  order,  been  excluded 
from  the  rocks  and  deserts  of  the  new  world,  the  office  of  converting  the  • 
heathen  of  Canada,  and  thus  enlarging  the  borders  of  French  dominion, 
was  entrusted  solely  to  the  Jesuits.”^  For  this  change  the  historian  can 
assio’n  no  better  motive,  than  that  the  Franciscans  were  a  mendicant  order — 
as  if  the  Jesuits  who  succeeded  them  had  not  also  taken  the  vow  of  poverty, — 
and  the  interposition  of  “devotees  ”  at  the  French  Court,  which  felt  that 
the  “  aspiring  honor  of  the  Gallican  church  was  interested.”^ 

In  the  first  place,  it  does  not  appear,  even  from  Mr.  Bancroft’s  own 
showing,  that  the  Franciscans  were  wholly  excluded  from  the  missions  of 
North  America.  For  as  late  as  1680,  we  find  that  the  Franciscan, 
Hennepin,  and  his  associates  of  the  same  order,  accompanied  the  expedi¬ 
tion  of  La  Salle  for  exploring  the  Mississippi.  It  was  he  who  first 
penetrated  to  the  Falls  of  St.  Anthony,  —  so  called  by  him  after  the  patron 
of  his  expedition,  St.  Anthony  of  Padua.  “On  a  tree  near  the  cataract. 


1  Vol.  iii,  p.  l‘Jl. 

3  Ibid.pp  llS-19. 
2E 


2  Except  those  who  labored  in  Mexico. 
4  Ibid,  p  120. 


5  Ibid. 


1? 


802 


EARLY  CATHOLIC  MISSIONS^. 


the  Franciscan  engraved  the  Cross  and  the  arms  of  France  ;  and,  after  a 
summer’s  rambles,  diversified  by  a  short  captivity  among  the  Sioux,  he 
and  his  companions  returned,  by'wayof  the  Wisconsin  and  Fox  rivers,  to 
the  French  mission  at  Green  Bay 

Perhaps  the  intrinsic  merits  of  the  Jesuits,  their  more  complete  organi¬ 
zation,  and  their  greater  adaptation  to  the  Indian  missions,  had  at  least  as 
much  to  do  with  their  having  been  selected  for  this  work  by  the  French 
authorities,  as  the  aspiring  honor  of  the  Gallican  church,  or  the  interference 
of  court  devotees.  Mr.  Bancroft  himself  does  justice  to  the  character  of 
the  Jesuits,  and  bears  us  out  in  our  mode  of  explaining  the  action  of  the 
French  court  on  the  subject.  After  having  well  spoken  of  the  first  estab¬ 
lishment  of  the  Jesuit  order,^  he  bears  this  testimony  to  the  worth  of  the, 
first  missionaries  of  the  society  in  Canada  : 

Within  three  years  after  the  second  occupation  of  Canada,  ( 1633-36,) 
the  number  of  Jesuit  priests  in  the  province  reached  fifteen ;  and  every 
tradition  bears  testimony  to  their  worth.  They  had  the  faults  of  ascetic 
superstition  ( 1);  but  the  horrors  of  a  Canadian  life  in  the  wilderness 
were  resisted  by  an  invincible  passive  courage,  and  a  deep  internal  tran¬ 
quillity.  Away  from  the  amenities  of  life,  away  from  the  opportunities 
of  vain-glory,  they  became  dead  to  the  world,  and  possessed  their  souls  in 
unalterable  peace.  The  few.,  who  lived  to  grow  old,  though  bowed  down 
by  the  toils  of  a  long  mission,  still  kindled  with  the  fervor  of  apostolic 
zeal.  The  history  of  their  labors  is  connected  with  the  origin  of  every 
celebrated  town  in  the  annals  of  French  America  ;  not  a  cape  was  turned, 
nor  a  river  entered,  but  a  Jesuit  led  the  way.”^ 

The  first  college  in  North  America,  as  we  have  said,  was  founded  by 
Catholics.  Here  we  have  also  the  authority  of  Bancroft,  who  moreover 
assigns  the  true  cause  which  led  to  its  establishment,  —  religious  zeal : 

“To  confirm  the  missions,  the  first  measure  was  the  establishment  of  a 
college  in  New  France;  and  the  parents  of  the  Marquis  de  Gamache, 
pleased  with  his  pious  importunity,  assented  to  his  entering  the  order  of 
the  Jesuits, 'and  added  from  their  ample  fortunes  the  means  of  endowing 
a  seminary  for  education  at  Quebec.  Its  foundation  was  laid,  under 
‘  happy  auspices,  in  1635,  just  before  Champlain  passed  from  among  the 
living,  and  two  years  before  the  emigration  of  John  Harvard,  and  one 
year  before  the  general  Court  of  Massachusetts  had  made  provision  for  a 
college.^’’'* 

The  first  charitable  institutions  on  our  portion  of  the  American  continent 
were  also  of  Catholic  origin  : 

“The  fires  of  charity  were  at  the  same  time  enkindled.  The  dutchess 
D’  Aiguillon,  aided  by  her  uncle,  the  Cardinal  Richelieu,  endowed  a 
public  hospital  dedicated  to  the  Son  of  God,  whose  blood  was  shed  in 
mercy  for  all  mankind.  Its  doors  were  opened,  not  only  to  the  sufferers 
among  the  emigrants,  but  to  the  maimed,  the  sick,  and  the  blind,  of  any 
of  the  numerous  tribes  between  the  Kennebec  and  Lake  Superior ;  it 
relieved  misfortune  without  asking  its  lineage.  From  the  hospital  nuns 
of  Dieppe,  three  were  selected,  the  youngest  but  twenty-two,  to  brave  the 
famine  and  the  rigors  of  Canada  in  their  patient  missions  of  benevolence.”^ 

This  noble  example  of  self  devoting  zeal  found  admirers  and  imitators 

1  Vol.  iii,  p.  127.  2  Pp.  166-7.  3  P.  120. 

i  Ibid.  p.  122.  5  P.  126. 


/ 


Bancroft’s  account. 


303 


among  the  religious  ladies  of  Catholic  France:  and  another  charitable 
institution  was  the  result : 

“  The  same  religious  enthusiasm,  inspiring  Madame  de  la  Peltier,  a  young 
and  opulent  widow  of  Alenson,  with  the  aid  of  a  nun  of  Dieppe  and  two 
others  from  Tours,  established  the  Ursuline  convent  for  the  education  of 
girls.  As  the  youthful  heroines  stepped  on  the  shore  at  Quebec,  (Aug. 
1,  1639)  they  stooped  to  kiss  the  earth,  which  they  adopted  as  their 
mother,  and  were  ready,  in  case  of  need,  to  tinge  with  their  blood.  The 
governor,  with  the  little  garrison,  received  them  at  the  water’s  edge  ; 
Hurons  and  Algonquins,  joining  in  the  shouts,  filled  the  air  with  yells  of 
joy;  and  the  motley  group  escorted  the  new  comers  to  the  Church  where, 
amidst  a  general  thanksgiving,  the  Te  Deum  was  chanted.  Is  it  won¬ 
derful  that  the  natives  were  touched  by  a  benevolence,  which  their 
poverty  and  squalid  misery  could  not  appall  ?  Their  education  was  also 
attempted  ;  and  the  venerable  ash  tree  still  lives,  beneath  which  Mary  of 
the  Incarnation,  so  famed  for  chastened  piety,  genius,  and  good  judgment, 
toiled,  though  in  vain,  for  the  culture  of  Huron  children.”* 

The  hearts  of  the  natives  were  much  more  capable  of  being  touched  by 
deeds  of  heroic  benevolence,  than  were  those  of  the  Puritans  at  no  remote 
period.  Every  body  knows  how  these  were  touched^  when  a  branch  of 
this  same  benevolent  order  of  Ursuline  ladies  was  established  in  the  imme¬ 
diate  vicinity  of  enlightened  Boston.  The  mouldering  ruins  of  Mount 
Benedict  still  stand,  a  proud  monument  of  their  benevolence  and  burning 
zeal !  Shame  on  them,  for  their  unmanly  and  cowardly  treatment  of 
harmless  and  benevolent  females  !  The  very  savages,  whom  their  fore¬ 
fathers  so  inhumanly  butchered,  would,  if  possible,  arise  from  their  tombs 
and  blush  for  them,  who  have  not  yet  learned  to  blush  ! 

Two  years  before  the  establishment  of  the  Ursulines  in  Quebec,  the 
benevolent  Silleri  had  already  created  another  charitable  institution  for  the 
civilization  of  the  savages,  (A.  D.  1637): 

“  Meantime,  a  colony  of  the  Hurons  had  been  established  in  the  vicinity 
of  Quebec ;  and  the  name  of  Silleri  is  the  monument  to  the  ’philanthropy 
of  its  projector.  Here  savages  were  to  be  trained  to  the  faith  and  the 
manners  of  civilization.”^ 

The  Hurons  were  the  first  tribe  o*f  Indians  to  whom  the  Jesuits  carried 
the  light  of  the  gospel.  In  1634,  Fathers  John  de  Brebeuf  and  Anthony 
Daniel  joined  a  party  of  barefoot  Hurons  who  were  returning  from  Quebec 
to  their  own  country,  situated  to  the  ^  North  West  of  Lake  Toronto,  and 
near  the  shores  of  Lake  Huron.  The  journey  was  long  and  painful ;  the 
distance  was  three  hundred  leagues,  or  nine  hundred  miles  ;  the  way  lay 
through  dense  and  unexplored  forests,  almost  impassable  marshes,  along 
the  Ottowa  river  and  its  waters,  and  over  rugged  hills  and  precipices. 
Over  this  difficult  country,  they  had  to  carry  their  canoes  on  their  shoulders 
whenever  the  Ottowa  river  and  its  tributary  streams  proved  unnavigable : 

“  And  thus  swimming,  wading,  paddling,  or  bearing  the  canoe  across 
the  portages,  with  garments  torn,  with  feet  mangled,  yet  with  the  breviary 
safely  hung  around  the  neck,  and  vows,  as  they  advanced,  to  meet  deatli 

1  Vol.  iii,  p  127. 


2  Ibid. 


304 


EARLY  CATHOLIC  MISSIONS. 


twenty  times  over,  if  it  were  possible,  the  consecrated  envoys  made  their 
way,  by  rivers,  lakes,  and  forests,  from  Quebec  to  the  heart  of  the  Huron 
wild(^rness.  There  they  raised  the  first  humble  house  of  the  society  of 
Jesus  among  the  Hurons, —  the  cradle,  it  was  said,  of  His  Church,  who 
dwelt  at  Bethlehem  (^Nazareth?)  in  a  cottage.  This  little  chapel,  built  by 
aid  of  the  axe,  and  consecrated  to  St.  Joseph,  where,  in  the  gaze  of 
thronging  crowds,  vespers  and  matins  began  to  be  chanted,  and  the  sacred 
bread  was  consecrated  by  solemn  Mass,  amazed  the  hereditary  guardians 
of  the  council  fires  of  the  Huron  tribes.  Two  new  Christian  villages,  St. 
Louis  and  St.  Ignatius,  bloomed  among  the  Huron  forests.”’ 

In  another  place,  the  historian  thus  describes  the  missionary  life  among 
the  Hurons : 

“  The  life  of  a  missionary  on  Lake  Huron  was  simple  and  uniform.  The 
earliest  hours,  from  four  to  eight,  were  absorbed  in  private  prayer  f  the 
day  was  given  to  schools,  visits,  instructions  in  the  catechism,  and  a  service 
for  proselytes.  Sometimes,  after  the  manner  of  St.  Francis  Xavier,  Brebeuf 
would  walk  throucrh  the  village  and  its  environs,  ringing  a  little  bell  and 
inviting  the  Huron  braves  and  counselors  to  a  conference.  There,  under 
the  shady  forest,  the  most  solemn  mysteries  of  the  Catholic  faith  were 
subjected  to  discussion.”^ 

He  gives  the  following  very  interesting  account  of  the  famous  Huron 
Chief,  Ahasistari : 

”  Nature  had  planted  in  his  mind  the  seeds  of  religious  faith.  *  Before 
you  came  to  this  country,’  he  would  say,  ‘when  I  have  incurred  the 
greatest  perils,  and  have  alone  escaped,  I  have  said  to  myself :  some  pow¬ 
erful  spirit  has  the  guardianship  of  my  days  and  he  professed  his  belief 
in  Jesus,  as  the  good  genius  and  protector,  whom  he  had  before  uncon¬ 
sciously  adored.  After  trials  of  his  sincerity,  he  was  baptized ;  and, 
enlisting  a  troop  of  converts,  savages  like  himself,  ‘  let  us  strive,’  he 
exclaimed,  ‘  to  make  the  whole  world  embrace  the  faith  in  Jesus. 

This  last  incident  reminds  us  of  the  well  known  anecdote  of  the  more 
martial  king  Clovis,  the  founder  of  the  French  monarchy,  who,  hearing 
the  history  *of  our  Saviour’s  passion  read  to  him  while  confined  to  a  sick 
bed,  leaped  up,  and  exclaimed  :  “  Why  was  I  not  there  with  my  Franks?” 

The  Huron  missions  continued  to  flourish  for  the  space  of  fifteen  years: 
immense  numbers  of  the  Indians  entered  into  the  Christian  fold,  and  many 
flourishing  Christian  villages  were  organized.  The  central  mission,  called 
the  Conception,  of  which  the  chief  house  was  St.  Mary’s,  was  situated  on 
the  Matchedash,  a  stream  which  unites  Lakes  Toronto  and  Huron.  In  one 
single  year,  three  thousand  red  men  from  the  different  tribes  shared  the 
hospitality  of  the  good  fathers  at  this  missionary  station.  At  one  time,  the 
missionaries  had  no  communication  with  Quebec  or  Montreal  for  the  space 
of  three  whole  years,  (1641-1644)  during  which  their  clothing  fell  to 
pieces,  and  they  suffered  grievously  for  the  necessaries  of  life.  Still  they 
persevered  with  the  ardor  of  apostles,  and  their  nupaber  went  on  constantly 
increasing.  Let  us  again  hear  our  historian  : 

O  O 

“Yet  the  efforts  of  the  Jesuits  were  not  limited  even  to  the  Huron  race. 


1  Vol.  iii,  p.  122-3 

2  And  Mass,  which  was  celebrated  every  morning  about  sunrise,  in  presence  of  the  neophytes. 

3  P.  125.  4  Ibid. 


Bancroft’s  account. 


805 


Within  thirteen  years,  th’s  remote  wilderness  was  visited  by  forty-two 
missionaries,  members  of  the  society  of  Jesus,  besides  eighteen  others, 
who,  if  not  initiated,  were  yet  chosen  men,  ready  to  shed  their  blood  for 
their  faith.  Twice  or  thrice  a  year,  they  all  assembled  at  St-.  Mary’s  ;  for 
the  rest  of  the  time,  they  were  scattered  through  the  infidel  tribes.”  ^ 

t 

We  shall  hereafter  see  how  this  flourishing  mission  was  broken  up  by 
an  incursion  of  the  fierce  Iroquois,  the  most  deadly  enemies  of  the  Hurons. 
We  will  also  have  occasion  to  trace  more  in  detail,  from  the  old  Relation 
alluded  to,  the  wonderful  fruits  gathered  in  this  first  field  of  Jesuit  mission¬ 
ary  labors  among  the  Indians.  As  this  was  the  first  mission,  it  was  also 
a  kind  of  model  for  all  the  others ;  and  as  we  design,  in  our  second  and 
third  papers,  to  dwell  at  some  length  on  its  history,  we  will  be  dispensed 
from  here  giving  a  detailed  account  of  the  missions  among  the  other 
tribes.  We  will  accordingly  close  this  paper  with  a  rapid  glance  at  them, 
in  taking  which  we  will  follow  Mr.  Bancroft’s  statements,  which  we  have 
found  to  be,  in  the  main,  impartial,  and,  we  suppose,  accurate. 

From  the  map  published  by  the  Jesuits  in  Paris,  in  the  year  1660,  it 
appears  that  their  missionaries  before  this  date,  “had  traced  the  highway 
of  waters  from  Lake  Erie  to  Lake  Superior,  and  had  gained  a  glimpse  at 
least  of  Lake  Michigan.”  ^  As  early  as  1638,  the  plan  was  formed  by  them 
to  establish  missions  among  the  Algonquins  both  north  and  south  of  Lake 
Huron,  in  Michigan,  and  at  Green  Bay.  But  their  scanty  number  and 
incessant  labors  prevented  them  from  carrying  this  purpose  immediately 
into  execution.  Burning  with  zeal  for  the  salvation  of  souls  for  whom 
Jesus  had  died,  they  ardently  prayed  the  Lord  that  he  would  send 
additional  laborers  into  His  vineyard.  Their  prayer  was  heard  ;  and  two 
years  later,  (1640)  the  superiors  of  the  mission  were  enabled  to  send 
Fathers  Charles  Raymbault  and  Claude  Pijart  among  the  Algonquins  of 
tlie  North  and  West.’ 

A  year  later,  FF.  Raymbault  and  Jogues  were  sent  to  preach  among 
the  Chippewas  dwelling  at  Saulte  Sainte  Marie,  in  Michigan,  the  chief  of 
which  tribe  had  humbly  sued  for  missionaries.  This  mission  was  painful, 
but  it  promised  success  : 

“  The  chieftains  of  the  Chippewas  invited  the  Jesuits  to  dwell  among 
them,  and  hopes  were  inspired  of  a  permanent  mission.  A  council  was 
held:  ‘We  will  embrace  you,’  said  they,  ‘as  brothers;  we  will  derive 
profit  from  your  words.’”'*  “Thus,”  the  historian  says,  “did  the 
religious  zeal  of  the  French  bear  the  Cross  to  the  banks  of  the  St.  Mary 
and  the  confines  of  Lake  Superior,  and  look  wistfully  towards  the  homes 
of  the  Sioux  in  the  valley  of  the  Mississipi,  five  years  before  the  New 
Enoland  Elliot  had  addressed  the  tribe  of  Indians  that  dwelt  within  six 
miles  of  Boston  harbor.”® 

The  “  New  England  Elliot,”  should  not  be  mentioned  on  the  same  page 
with  the  very  humblest  of  the  Jesuit  missionaries.  Did  he,  or  did  any 
other  Protestant  minister,  ever  make  any  sacrifices  for  the  spiritual 


1  Vol.  iii,  r.  128. 
2E2 


2  Ibid. 


3  P.  129. 

23 


4  P.  132 


5  P.  131. 


306 


EARLY  CATHOLIC  MISSIONS. 


benefit  of  the  Indians  ?  Did  he  leave  father  and  mother,  and  home  and 
wife,”  to  devote  himself,  body  and  soul,  for  their  salvation,  amid  “Perils 
of  rivers,  in  perils  of  robbers,  in  perils  in  the  wilderness,  in  labors  and 
painfulness,  in  watching  often,  in  hunger  and  thirst,  in  many  fastings,  in 
cold  and  in  nakedness?”*  Was  ever  a  Protestant  minister  known  to 
endure  all  this,  or  even  any  considerable  portion  of  it,  for  the  love  of 
Christ,  and  the  conversion  of  the  heathen  ? '  All  these  privations,  however, 
the  Jesuits  cheerfully  endured,  and  many  of  them  much  more  besides; 
for  many  of  them  gladly  laid  down  their  lives  in  this  cause.  The  first 
missionaries  among  the  Hurons, — Fathers  Daniel,  De  Brebeuf,  and  Lalle- 
mant, —  all  fell  glorious  martyrs  to  their  devoted  zeal.  The  “hJew 
England  Elliot  ”  is  not  known  to  have  penetrated  much  farther  into  the 
Indian  wilderness  than  six  miles  from  Boston  harbor;  and  he  did  very  little, 
and  succeeded  very  poorly,  even  when  he  had  reached  this  amazing 
distance  from  home ! 

Father  Rayrnbault  soon  after  fell  a  victim  to  the  climate,  and  died  of 
consumption  at  Quebec.  (Oct.  1642)  His  associate.  Father  Jogues,  who 
with  him  had  first  planted  the  Cross  in  Michigan,  was  reserved  for  a  still 
more  disastrous,  though  glorious  fate.  Taken  prisoner  by  the  fierce 
Mohawks,  he  was  carried  by  them  to  the  vicinity  of  Albany  in  New  York. 
His  brave  companion,  the  Huron  chief  Ahasistari,  could  easily  have 
effected  his  escape,  at  the  time  that  the  Jesuit  was  captured :  but  he  came 
■out  from  his  hiding  place,  and  addressing  Father  Jogues,  said:  “My 
brother,  I  made  oath  to  thee  that  I  would  share  thy  fortune,  whether 
death  or  life;, here  I  am  to  keep  my  vow.”**  He  was  condemned  to  the 
flames ;  and  “  having  received  absolution,  he  met  his  end  with  the 
enthusiasm  of  a  convert,  and  the  pride  of  the  most  gallant  war  chief  of 
his  tribe.”  ^ 

Father  Jogues  was  made  to  run  the  gauntlet  at  three  different  Mohawk 
villages  :  “  For  days  and  nights,  he  was  abandoned  to  hunger  and  every 
torment  which  petulant  youth  could  devise.  But  yet  there  was  conso¬ 
lation  :  an  ear  of  Indian  corn  on  the  stalk  was  thrown  to  the  good  father, 
and  see !  to  the  broad  blade  there  clung  little  drops  of  dew,  or  of  water, 
enough  to  baptize  two  captive  neophytes!”^  He  had  expected  death :  but 
the  Mohawks,  satisfied  perhaps  with  his  sufferings,  or  awed  at  his 
sanctity,  spared  his  life,  and  his  liberty  was  enlarged : 

“  On  a  hill  apart,  he  carved  a  long  Cross  on  a  tree,  and  there,  in  the 
solitude,  meditated  the  imitation  of  Christ  and  soothed  his  griefs  by 
reflecting  that  he  alone,  in  that  vast  region,  adored  the  true  God  of  earth  . 
and  heaven.  Roaming  through  the  stately  forests  of  the  Mohawk  valley, 
he  wrote  the  name  of  Jesus  on  the  bark  of  trees,  engraved  the  Cross,  and 
entered  into  possession  of  these  countries,  in  the  name  of  God, —  often 
lifting  up  his  voice  in  a  solitary  chant.  Thus  did  France  bring  its  banner 
and  its  faith  to  the  confines  of  Albany.  The  missionary  himself  was 
humanely  ransomed  from  captivity  by  the  Dutch,  and  sailing  for  France, 
soon  returned  to  Canada.”® 

1  2  CoriDth.  xi,  26,  27.  2  P.  133  3  P.  134.  4  P.  133.  P.  13L 


Bancroft’s  account. 


307 


“  Similar  was  the  fate  of  Father  Bressani.  Taking  prisoner  while  on 
his  way  to  the  Hurons ;  beaten,  mangled,  mutilated ;  driven  barefoot  over 
rough  paths,  through  briars  and  thickets  ;  scourged  by  a  whole  village  ; 
burned,  tortured,  wounded,  and  scarred, —  he  was  eye-witness  to  the  fate 
of  one  of  his  companions,  who  was  boiled  and  eaten.  Yet  some  mysterious 
awe  protected  his  life,  and  he  too  was  at  last  humanely  rescued  by  the 
Dutch.”  ' 

These  examples  are  worthy  of  the  brightest  days  of  the  Church,  when 
the  Pasfans  shouted  :  “  The  Christians  to  the  lions  !  ” 

The  charity  of  Christ  urged  the  missionaries  forward,  as  it  had  impelled 
St.  Paul  of  old.  Like  him,  too,  “Forgetting  the  things  that  vrere  behind, 
and  stretching  forth  themselves  to  those  which  were  before,  they  pursued 
towards  the  mark,  for  the  prize  of  the  supernal  vocation  of  God  in  Christ 
Jesus.”  ^  Wherever  there  was  an  opportunity  to  gain  a  soul  to  Christ, 
there  the  Jesuit  apostle  was  to  be  found,  in  spite  of  snows  and  frosts,  and 
rugged  roads,  and  apprehensionts  of  savage  barbarity.  Onward  and  still 
onward  rolled  the  sacred  tide  of  missionary  enterprise,  purifying  and 
regenerating  the  savage  tribes  in  its  course.  The  missionary  never 
paused  in  his  career  :  he  sought  no  rest,  other  than  the  eternal  rest  of  the 
saints  in  heaven. 

The  Abenakis  of  Maine  had  already  received  the  light  of  the  gospel 
from  the  Franciscan  missionaries,  early  in  the  seventeenth  century.  One 
of  these.  Father  Viel,  had  been  drowned,  (A.  D.  1623)  by  having  his 
frail  canoe  dashed  to  pieces,  while  “  shooting  a  rapid  on  his  way  from  the 
Hurons.”  ^  The  Aben'akis,  touched  with  the  benevolence  of  Silleri, 
applied  for  Jesuit  missionaries  in  the  year  1646  ; 

“  In  August,  Father  Gabriel  Dreuillettes,  first  of  Europeans,  made  the 
long  and  painful  journey  Jrom  the  St.  Lawrence  to  the  sources  of  the 
Kennebec,  and,  descending  that  stream  to  its  mouth  in  a  bark  canoe, 
continued  his  roamings  on  an  open  sea  along  the  coast.  A  few  miles 
above  the  mouth  of  the  Kennebec,  the  Indians  in  large  numbers 
gathered  about  him,  building  a  rude  chapel.  In  the  winter,  he  was  their 
companion  in  their  long  excursions  in  quest  of  game.  Who  can  tell  all  the 
hazards  that  were  encountered  ?  The  sharp  rocks  in  the  channel  of  the 
rrver  were  full  of  perils  for  the  frail  canoe  ;  winter  turned  the  solitudes 
into  a  wilderness  of  snow ;  the  rover,  Christian  or  Pagan,  must  carry 
about  with  him  his  house,  his  furniture,  and  his  food.  But  the  Jesuit 
succeeded  in  winning  the  affections  of  the  savages  ;  and,  after  a  pilgrim¬ 
age  of  ten  months,  an  escort  of  thirty  conducted  him  to  Quebec,  full  of 
health  and  joy.” 

Thus  the  Jesuits  had  penetrated  the  present  territory  of  the  United 
States  at  three  different  points  :  at  Sault  St.  Marie  in  Michigan,  among 
the  Abenakis  of  Maine,  and  among  the  Mohawks  around  Albany  in  New 
York.  This  last  tribe  was  the  fiercest  and  most  indomitable  of  all.  We 
have  already  seen  how  cruelly  they  treated  Father  Isaac  Jogues,  and  how 
wonderfully  he  escaped  from  their  hands.  This  good  man,  having 
speedily  returned  to  the  missions  in  Canada,  soon  had  an  opportunity  of 
requiting  evil  with  good.  In  May,  1646,  he  was  sent  on  an  embassy 
1  Vol.  iii,  p.  134  2  PhUippians  iii,  13-14.  3  P  137.  4  Ibid.  p.  136. 


308 


EARLY  CATHOLIC  MISSIONS. 


to  the  Mohawks,  whose  language  he  had  learned  while  in  captivity.  He 
was  hospitably  received,  and  he  had  an  interview  also  with  the  Onondagas, 
a  neighboring  tribe.  Elated  with  joy  at  his  success,  on  his  return  to 
Quebec,  he  made  a  report,  which  inspired  the  hope  and  induced  the 
resolution  of  founding  a  permanent  mission  in  New  York.  He  was 
selected  as  superior  of  the  new  mission. 

On  leaving  his  brethren,  he  said  :  Iho  et  non  redibo, —  “  I  will  go  and 
will  not  return.”  The  treacherous  Mohawks  made  him  prisoner  ;  “  And, 
against  the  voice  of  the  other  nations,  he  was  condemned  by  the  grand 
council  as  an  enchanter,  who  had  blighted  their  harvest.  Timid  by 
nature,  yet  tranquil  from  zeal,  he  approached  the  cabin  where  the  death 
festival  was  kept,  and,  as  he  entered,  received  the  death  blow.  His  head 
was  hung  upon  the  palisades  of  the  village,  his  body  thrown  into  the 
Mohawk  river.” ' 

The  Onondagas  and  other  tribes  of*»New  York  were  more  sincere. 
The  death  of  Father  Jogues,  far  from  terrifying  his  brother  missionaries, 
had  contributed  rather  to  influence  them  with  a  desire  to  labor  in  the 
same  field,  and  if  possible,  to  share  his  crown  of  martyrdom.  In  1665, 
Fathers  Chaumonot  and  Dablon,  were  sent  on  this  mission  : 

“  They  were  hospitably  welcomed  at  Onondaga,  the  principal  village 
‘  of  the  tribe.  A  general  convention  was  held  at  their  desire  ;  and,  before 
the  multitudinous  assembly  of  the  chiefs  and  the  whole  people,  gathered 
under  the  open  sky,  among  the  primeval  forests,  the  presents  were 
delivered  ;  and  the  Italian  Jesuit,  with  much  gesture,  after  the  Italian 
manner,  discoursed  so  eloquently  to  the  crowd,  that  it  seemed  to  Dablon 
as  if  the  word  of  God  had  been  preached  to  all  the  nations  of  that  land. 
On  the  next  day,  the  chiefs  and  others  crowded  round  the  Jesuits  with 
their  songs  of  welcome.  ‘  Happy  land  !  *  they  sang,  ‘  happy  land  !  in 
which  the  F rench  are  to  dwell  ;  ’  and  the  chief  led  the  choi'us  ;  ‘  Glad 
tidings  !  glad  tidings  !  It  is  well,  that  we  have  spoken  together  ;  it  is 
well,  that  we  have  a  heavenly  message.’  At  once  a  chapel  sprang  into 
existence,  and  by  the  zeal  of  the  nation  was  finished  in  a  day.  ‘  For 
marbles  and  precious  stones,’  writes  Dablon,  ‘we  employed  only  bark; 
but  the  pjath  to  heaven  is  as  open  through  a  roof  of  bark,  as  through 
arched  ceilings  of  silver  and  gold.’  The  savages  showed  themsehtes 
susceptible  of  the  excitements  of  religious  ecstacy  ;  and  there,  in  the 
heart  of  New  York,  the  solemn  services  of  the  Roman  (Catholic)  Church, 
were  chanted  as  securely  as  in  any  part  of  Christendom.”  - 

The  other  tribes  of  New  York  also  received  missionaries,  about  the 
same  time.  Even  the  fierce  Mohawks  began  to  relent,  and  the  Jesuit  Le 
Moyne,  “  selecting  the  banks  of  their  river  for  his  abode,  resolved  to 
persevere,  in  tlie  vain  hope  of  infusing  into  their  savage  nature  the  gentler 
spirit  of  civilization.”®  The  other  tribes  of  the  five  nations,  including 
the  Onondagas  just  mentioned,  proved  more  tractable; 

“  Tlie  Cayugas  also  desired  a  missionary,  and  they  received  the  fearless 
Reno  Mesnard.  In  their  village,  a  chapel  was  erected,  with  mats  for 
the  tapestry  ;  and  there  the  pictures  of  the  Saviour,  and  of  the  Virgin 
Mother,  were  unfolded  to  the  admiring  children  of  the  wilderness.  The 


1  Vol  iii,  P.  137-8. 


2  Ibid,  p,  143. 


8  Ibid. 


Bancroft’s  account. 


309 


Oneidas  also  listened  to  the  missionary ;  and,  early  in  1657,  Chaumonot, 
reached  the  more  fertile  and  more  densely  peopled  land  of  the  Senecas.  *  * 
The  Jesuit  priests  published  their  faith  from  the  Mohawk  to  the  Genessee, 
Onondaga  remaining  the  central  station.’*' 

The  missions  stretched  westward,  along  Lake  Superior,  to  the  waters 
of  the  Mississippi.  Two  young  fur  tracers,  having  traveled  to  the  west 
for  five  hundred  leagues,  returned  in  1656,  attended  by  a  number  of 
savages  from  the  Mississippi  valley,  who  eagerly  demanded  missionaries  for 
their  country  lying  beyond  Lake  Superior  : 

“Their  request  was  eagerly  granted;  and  Gabriel  Dreuillettes,  the 
same  wlio  carried  the  Cross  through  the  forests  of  Maine,  and  Leonard 
Gareau,  of  old  a  missionary  among  the  Hurons,  were  selected  as  the  first 
re^gious  envoys  to  a  land  of  sacrifices,  shadows,  and  deaths.  The  canoes 
are  launched ;  the  tawny  mariners  embark ;  the  oars  flash  and  words  of 
joy  and  triumph  mingle  with  the  last  adieus.  But  just  below  Montreal,, 
a  band  of  Mohawks,  enemies  to  the  Otto  was,  awaited  the  convoy ;  in  the 
aft’ray,  Gareau  was  mortally  wounded  and  the  fleet  dispersed.”^ 

Undeterred  by  the  sad  fate  of  these  first  envoys,  the  Jesuits  were 
still  fired  with  zeal  to  carry  the  Cross  westward: 

“  If  the  five  nations,”  they  said,  “  can  penetrate  these  regions,  to  satiate 
their  passion  for  blood  ;  if  mercantile  enterprise  can  bring  furs  from  the 
plains  of  the  Sioux  ; —  why  cannot  the  Cross  be  borne  to  their  cabins  ?  *  * 
The  zeal  of  Francis  de  Laval,  the  bishop  of  Quebec,  kindled  with  a 
desire  himself  to  enter  on  the  mission  ;  but  the  lot  fell  to  Rene  Mesnard. 
He  was  charged  to  visit  Green  Bay  and  Lake  Superior,  and  on  a  con¬ 
venient  inlet,  to  establish  a  residence  as  a  common  place  of  assembly  for  the 
surrounding  nations.  His  departure  was  immediate,  (A.  D.  1660)  and 
with  few  preparations;  for  he  trusted  —  such  are  his  words  —  ‘in  the 
Providence  which  feeds  the  little  birds  of  the  desert,  and  clothes  the  wild 
flowers  of  the  forests.’  Every  personal  motive  seemed  to  retain  him  at 
Quebec  ;  but  powerful  instincts  impelled  him  to  the  enterprise.  Obedient 
to  his  vows,  the  aged  man  entered  on  the  path  that  was  red  with  the  blood  of 
his  predecessors,  and  made  haste  to  scatter  the  seeds  of  truth  through  the 
wilderness,  even  though  the  sower  cast  his  seed  in  weeping.  ‘In  three  or  four 
months,’  he  wrote  to  a  friend,  ‘you  may  add  me  to  the  memento  of  deaths.’ 

His  presentiment  was  verified  by  the  event.  After  having  remained 
with  his  neophytes  about  eight  months,  the  venerable  man,  “  while  his 
attendant  was  employed  in  the  labor  of  transporting  the  canoe,  was  lost 
in  the  forest,  and  was  never  more  seen.  Long  afterwards,  his  cassock 
and  his  breviary  were  kept  as  amulets  among  the  Sioux.”'* 

Similar  was  the  death  of  the  great  Father  Marquette,  the  discoverer  of 
the  Mississippi  ; — for  want  of  space  compels  us  reluctantly  to  pass  over 
the  labors  of  his  two  illustrious  companions.  Fathers  Allouez  and 
Dablon,*  as  well  as  our  author’s  grapliic  account  of  the  brilliant  missions 
among  the  Chippewas,  the  Sioux,  the  Illinois,  the  Potowatamies,  the  Sacs 
and  the  Foxes.®  The  omission,  however,  may  be,  in  a  great  measure, 
supplied  by  the  reader  himself;  for  what  has  been  said  of  the  other  mis¬ 
sions,  may  be  repeated,  with  some  modifications,  of  those  just  mentioned 

1  Vol.  iii,  P.  144.  2  I*  146.  3  P.  147. 

4  ibid.  6  See  Bancroft,  pp.  149,  seq  and  152.  seq.  6  P.  150  seq. 


310 


EARLY  CATHOLIC  MISSIONS. 


We  will  now  give  Mr.  Bancroft's  account  of  the  death  of  Marquette.  In 
Company  with  the  French  envoy  Joliet,  he  had  discovered  and  descended 
the  Mississippi  to  a  point  beyond  the  mouth  of  the  Arkansas  River.  On 
the  17th  of  July,  ,1673,  he  prepared  for  his  return  up  the  mighty  stream. 
Both  in  his  descent  and  in  his  ascent,  he  had  often  paused  to  preach  the 
gospel  to  the  numerous  tribes  of  Indians  with  whom  he  happened  to 
meet.  On  his  return,  he  ascended  and  explored  the  Illinois  river;  and 
soon  arrived  at  Green  Bay,  by  way  of  Chicago  and  Lake  Michigan  : 

“Joliet  returned  to  Quebec  to  announce  the  discovery ;  *  *  the  unaspir¬ 
ing  Marquette  remained  to  preach  the  gospel  to  the  Miamis,  who  dwelt  in 
the  north  of  Illinois,  round  Chicago.  Two  years  afterwards,  (A.  D. 
1675)  sailing  from  Chicago  to  Mackinaw,  he  entered  a  little  river  in 
Michigan.  Erecting  an  altar,  he  said  Mass  after  the  rites  of  the  Catholic 
Church  :  then,  begging  the  men  who  conducted  his  canoe  to  leave  liim 
alone  for  a  half  hour, 

‘  In  the  darkling  wood, 

Amid  the  cool  and  silence,  he  knelt  down, 

And  offered  to  the  Mightiest  solemn  thanks 
And  supplication  ’ 

At  the  end  of  the  half  hour,  they  went  to  seek  him,  and  he  was  no  more. 
The  good  missionary,  discoverer  of  a  new  world,  had  fallen  asleep  on  the 
margin  of  the  stream  that  bears  his  name.  Near  its  mouth,  the  canoemen 
dug  his  grave  in  the  sand.  Ever  after,  the  forest  rangers,  if  in  danger 
on  Lake  Michigan,  would  invoke  his  name.  The  people  of  the  west  will 
build  his  monument.”* 

Such  are  some  of  the  leading  facts  and  incidents  of  the  earliest  Catholic 
missions  among  the  Indian  tribes  of  the  North  West.  The  reader 
cannot  fail  to  have  admired  the  self-devotion,  the  disinterestedness,  and 
the  unquenchable  zeal  of  the  Jesuits.  Their  missionary  labors  on  our 
continent  forcibly  remind  us  of  the  heroic  disregard  of  self  manifested 
by  Christian  missionaries  in  the  first  ages  of  the  Church.  Their  stupen¬ 
dous  success  is  a  conclusive  proof,  that  God  was  with  them,  and  smiled 
on  their  exertions  ;  and  also  that  they  preached  the  true  faith.  We  may 
triumphantly  ask  our  dissenting  brethren,  to  produce,  from  the  annals  of 
their  missionary  enterprise,  any  thing  to  compare  with  the  picture  drawn 
of  the  early  Jesuit  missions  by  the  Protestant  historian,  Bancroft. 

The  Jesuit  missions  of  the  North  West,  begun  under  auspices  so 
favorable,  were  continued  with  various  vicissitudes,  from  1634,  to  the 
suppression  of  the  order  in  1773, — a  period  of  139  years.  Even  after 
this  event,  some  of  the  Jesuits  still  remained  with  their  dear  Indians,  in 
the  character  of  secular  priests.^  After  the  English  government  had 
gained  possession  of  Canada,  in  1763,  the  Jesuits  were  viewed  with 
suspicion,  and  they  would  speedily  no  doubt  have  been  excluded  from  the 
Indian  missions  under  British  influence,  even  if  Clement  XIV.  had  not 
thought  proper  to  suppress  the  order,  ten  years  later.  What  cared  Eng¬ 
land  for  the  souls  of  the  poor  savages  ?  Or  what  nation  or  tribe  did  her 
influence  ever  convert  or  civilize  ? 


1  P  161-2 


2  As.  for  instance,  the  one  stationed  at  Kaskaskias. 


XVJ.  EARLY  CATHOLIC  MISSIONS  IN  THE  NORTH' 

WEST. 

SECOND  PAPER. - THE  HURON  MISSION. 

A  beautiful  spectacle  —  Reclaiming  the  savage  —  Details  of  the  Mission  among  the  Hurous  —  The 
nation  of  Christians  —  An  Indian  council  —  A  touching  incident — A  picture  of  primitive  fervor  — 
Edifying  anecdotes  —  Triumphs  of  grace —  Attack  of  the  Huron  villages  —  Father  Daniel —  Ilis: 
glorious  martyrdom  —  His  virtues  —  Another  attack  by  the  Iroquois  —  Heroic  conduct  of  Fathers 
de  Brebeuf  and  Lallemant — They  are  made  prisoners  —  Devotedness  of  their  neophytes  —  The 
glories  of  the  Huron  Mission  scattered. 

In  our  first  Paper,  we  glanced  rapidly  at  the  history  of  the  early  Jesuit 
missions  among  the  Indians  of  the  North  West,  as  given  by  the  American 
historian  Bancroft.  In  the  present,  we  design  to  furnish  some  additional 
details  concerning  the  mission  among  the  Hurons,  the  first  of  all  in  point 
of  time  ;  having  been  established,  as  we  have  already  seen,  as  early  as 
tlie  year  1634. 

The  facts  which  we  will  give  are  taken  from  the  old  account,  or 
Relation,  drawn  up  by  Father  Paul  Ragueneau,  the  Superior  of  the 
mission,  and  published  at  Paris  in  1650.  This  document  furnishes  an 
interesting  account  of  the  state  of  the  mission  in  the  years  1648  and 
1649  ;  and  it  gives  a  thrilling  sketch  of  the  horrors  attending  the  des¬ 
truction  of  the  Christian  villages  of  St.  Joseph  and  of  St.  Ignatius,  by 
incursions  of  the  Iroquois,'  the  most  deadly  enemies  of  the  Hurons  and 
of  the  Christian  name. 

It  is  indeed  a  beautiful  spectacle,  to  behold  Christian  civilization 
blooming  amid  the  frosty  wilderness  of  Canada,  and  taking  deep  root  and 
flourishing  in  the  hearts  of  the  wild  children  of  the  forest.  It  does  the 
Christian  heart  good,  to  see  the  fierce  and  hitherto  indomitable .  savage 
entirely  tamed,  and  meekly  bowing  his  neck  to  the  sweet  yoke  of  Christ; 
to  behold  the  devouring  wolf  converted  into  the  gentle  lamb  of  the  fold. 
The  annals  of  Catholic  missions  alone  can  present  scenes  so  sublime  and 
so  touching.  Philosophy  may  speculate  on  its  inflated  theories  of  high- 
sounding  benevolence  ;  Protestantism  may  boast  its  missionary  zeal : 
but  it  is  only  Catholicity  which  can  reclaim  the  savage,  tame  his 
ferocity,  and  effectually  teach  him  the  arts  of  civilization. 

♦  ‘‘Relation  de  ce  qui  est  passe  en  la  Mission  des  Peres  do  la  Cornpagnie  de  Jesus 
aux  Hurons,  pais  de  la  Nouvelle  France,  aux  annees  1618  et  1649.  Par  P.  Paul 
Ragueneau,  de  latnesme  Compagnie.  A  Paris,  16.')0.” 

I  Bancroft  calls  those  who  destroyed  the  mission  of  St.  Joseph  Moa.4WKs  ;  (vol.  iii,  p.  138)  but 
the  Relation  styles  them  laoquois.  F.  8. 

311 


812 


EARLY  CATHOLIC  MISSIONS. 


The  missions  of  Paraguay  in  South  America,  and  those  among  the 
Hurons  and  other  tribes  of  the  North  West,  contrasted  with  those  which 
Protestant  missionary  zeal  has  attempted  among  the  Indians  of  North 
America,  clearly  prove  the  truth  of  these  remarks.  Wliile  the  latter 
have  proved,  in  every  instance,  a  complete  failure,  the  former  were 
eminently  successful,  and  plainly  bespoke  the  divine  sanction  and  assist¬ 
ance.  It  is  only  the  Catholic  Church,  the  faithful  spouse  of  Jesus 
Christ,  “  without  spot  or  wrinkle,’’  which  can  bring  forth  children  for 
the  kingdom  of  God  ;  the  sects,  ever  since  their  divorce,  have  been 
doomed  to  barrenness.  What  savage  tribe,  in  fact,  have  Protestant 
missionaries  ever  succeeded  in  converting  or  civilizing  ?  On  the  con¬ 
trary,  we  have  already  seen,  on  the  authority  of  the  Protestant  historian 
Bancroft,  what  was  effected  in  this  way  by  the  Jesuit  missionaries  in 
North  America.  And  his  statement,  honorable  as  it  is  to  the  zeal  and 
labors  of  the  Jesuits,  is  still  very  meagre  indeed,  when  compared  with 
the  detailed  accounts  furnished  by  those  who  were  actors  in  the  scenes 
which  he  so  summarily  describes.  This  will  sufficiently  appear  from 
the  facts  embodied  in  the  present  paper. 

Fathers  Anthony  Daniel  and  John  de  Brebeuf  were  the  first  missionaries 
sent  among  the  Hurons,  in  the  year  163.4.  We  have  already  seen  how 
much  they  suffered  on  tlie  long  journey  of  nine  hundred  miles,  from 
Quebec  ’  to  the  Huron  wilderness.  After  having  labored  with  un¬ 
tiring  zeal,  and  amidst  sufferings  and  privations  of  the  most  appalling 
character,  for  the  space  of  about  fifteen  years,  they  both  sealed  their 
mission  with  their  blood.  The  first  missionaries  to  the  Hurons,  they 
were  also  the  first  martyrs.  Their  blood,  however,  far  from  quenching 
missionary  zeal,  was,  on  the  contrary,  a  fertile  seed,  scattered  on  the  face 
of  the  wilderness,  from  which  new  champions  sprang  forth,  panting  for 
the  crown  of  martyrdom.  The'  same  heroic  spirit  which  had  led 
Christians  to  smile  on  death  in  the  days  of  Tertullian,  at  the  close  of  the 
second  century,  was  manifested  by  the  faithful  children  of  the  Catholic 
Church  laboring  amid  the  snows  of  the  Huron  wilderness,  in  the  middle 
of  the  seventeenth.  The  power  of  God  was  not  abridged,  nor  was  his 
right  arm  shortened. 

These  two  venerable  pioneers  of  the  Indian  missions  soon  beheld 
themselves  surrounded  by  a  large  body  of  zealous  companions,  equally 
devoted,  in  life  and  in  death,  to  the  good  cause.  Four  new  missionaries 
having  arrived  in  September  1648,  the  total  number  laboring  in  the 
Huron  mission  then  amounted  to  eighteen.  These  were  dispersed 
through  eleven  diffei’ent  stations,  eight  of  Avhich  were  for  the  tribes  who 
spoke  the  Huron  tongue,  and  the  three  others  were  among  the  Algon- 
quins.^  The  four  newly  arrived  apostles  were  given  as  assistants  tc 
those  whose  districts  were  the  most  extensive;  the  greater  portion  of  the 
missionaries  had  no  companions,  save  “  the  tutelary  angels  of  the  tribes*’ 

1  Called  Kebkc  in  the  oldest  writiugs,  and  in  the  iJcZatio/i  of  1648—1649. 

2  Relation,  p  13. 


THE  HURON  MISSIONS. 


313 


among  which  they  labored.*  The  condition  of  the  mission  is  thus 
described  bv  Father  Raufueneau: 

“  Everywhere  tlie  progress  of  the  faith  has  far  surpassed  our  hopes ; 
tlie  greater  portion  of  the  savages,  even  those  who  had  been  before  the 
most  ferocious,  liaving  become  so  docile  and  so  pliable  to  the  preaching 
of  the  Gospel,  as  to  make  it  manifest  that  the  angels  labored  more  among 
them  than  ourselves.  The  number  of  those  who  received  baptism  during 
the  past  year  (1648)  is  about  eighteen  hundred;  without  reckoning  a 
vast  multitude  baptized  by  Father  Anthony  Daniel,  on  the  day  of  the 
capture  of  St.  Josepli’s,  of  whom  we  have  not  been  able  to  take  any  exact 
account ;  and  not  comprising  tliose  baptized  by  Fathers  John  de  Brebeuf 
and  Gabriel  Lallemaiit  at  the  capture  of  the  villages  forming  the  mission 
of  St.  Ignatius.  ...  It  is  enough  for  us  that  heaven  hath  kept  a  good 
account  of  these,  for,  in  sooth,  these  baptisms  have  served  but  to  enrich 
the  Church  triumphant.”  ^ 

The  Relation  then  proceeds  to  state,  that  no  intelligence  had  yet  been 
received  from*  a  mission  established  eischt  months  before  amonof  a  tribe  of 
the  Algonquins,  dwelling  on  an  island  sixty  leagues  to  the  w'est.  The 
missionary  who  was  stationed  at  this  distant  post,  far  away  from  his 
brethren,  had  much  to  endure,  and  had  already  no  doubt  gained  many 
souls  to  Jesus  Christ.  This  island,  situated  amidst  the  waters  of  Lake 
Huron,  was  called  by  the  Indians  Ekaentoton ;  but  the  Jesuits  named  it 
St.  Mary's? 

Wherever  a  mission  was  orjjanized,  there  a  flourishinar  Christian  villas^e, 
and  sometimes  a  cluster  of  them,  sprang  up  amidst  the  frowning'  wilder¬ 
ness.  The  Jesuit  missionary  was  the  father  of  each  little  Christian 
community.  He  lived  with  his  spiritual  children,  adopted  their  mode  of 
life,  shared  their  privations,  rejoiced  with  them  when  they  rejoiced,  and 
wept  with  them  when  they  wept.  He  became  “all  to  all,  to  gain  all  to 
Christ.”  The  affections  of  the  Indians  were  thus  won,  their  hearts  were 
enchained  ;  they  became  as  docile  as  little  children  in  the  hands  of  the 
missionaries,  and  they  renewed  in  their  lives  the  brilliant  examples  of 
virtue  set  by  the  primitive  Christians. 

The  mission  of  the  Conception,  of  which  the  principal  station  was  at 
St.  Mary’s,  was  the  oldest  of  those  established  among  the  Hurons.  It 
was  the  one,  too,  which  set  the  brightest  example  of  every  virtue,  and 
shone  as  a  brilliant  luminary  in  the  mid>t  of  the  wilderness,  presenting  a 
model  for  ti  e  imitation  of  the  neighboring  tribes.  Says  the  Relation  : 

”  Men,  women,  and  children,  made  so  open  a  profession  of  what  they 
all  wished  to  be  even  unto  death,  that  the  surrounding  tribes  were  wont  to  . 
call  tliem  by  no  other  name,  than  the  Nation  of  Christians.  In  effect, 
their  chiefs  are  so  ardent  in  maintaining  the  faith,  and  all  the  families  have 
submitted  to  its  teachings  so  generally,'  that,  but  very  few  infidels  remain¬ 
ing  among  them,  the  Christians  are  no  longer  willing  to  tolerate  any  of 
their  ancient  customs,  which  were  the  remains  of  infidelity,  or  which  were 
injurious  to  morals.  In  the  beginning  of  the  winter  (1648-9)  these  good 
neophytes  convened  a  general  council,  to  confer  together  on  the  best  means 
for  strengthening  the  faitli  among  them.  They  came  to  the  conclusion  to 

1  RtOation,  p  y.  2  Ibid  p.  18-19.  3  Ibid.  p.  20. 

2F 


314 


EARLY  CATHOLIC  MISSIONS. 


seek  out  the  Father  who  has  charge  of  the  mission,  and  to  beg  him  to 
retrench  from  their  customs  whatever  was  contrary  to  the  faith,  and  to 
correct,  in  those  uses  which  were  indifferent,  whatever  might  prove  in 
any  wise  dangerous ;  and  they  pledged  themselves  to  obey  him  in  every 
tiling,  to  view  him  as  the  bearer  of  the  word  of  God,  and  as  their  first 
Chief.  The  best  of  it  is,  that  they  keep  their  word,  and  that,  on  the 
least  doubt  which  subsequently  arose  on  this  subject,  their  chiefs  came 
themselves  to  the  Father  to  receive  and  execute  his  orders.”* 

Towards  the  close  of  the  winter,  this  good  resolution  was  put  to  the 
test.  Some  obstinate  infidels  among  the  Hurons,  wishing  to  revive  their 
ancient  sorceries  and  impure  remedies  for  healing  the  sick,  called  in  some 
chiefs  from  the  neighboring  infidel  tribes  to  aid  them  with  their  influence; 
but  these  found  the  faith  of  the  neophytes  proof  against  all  their  efforts  to 
shake  it,  and  they  were  compelled  to  desist  from  this  attempt.^  The  fol¬ 
lowing  incident,  which  we  abridge  from  the  Relation,^  will  serve  to  show 
how  unshaken  was  the  constancy  of  those  Huron  Christians. 

In  one  of  the  public  games  practised  among  the  Hurons,  it  was  customary 
for  the  war-chief  to  enter  the  cabins  of  the  village  in  a  kind  of  fury,  and 
with  uplifted  tomahawk  to  destroy  the  doors  and  rude  furniture,  as  if 
attacking  an  enemy’s  camp.  In  one  of  these  fits  of  assumed  rage,  an 
infidel  chief  of  great  credit  in  the  tribe  declared  that  he  had  been  admon¬ 
ished  in  a  dream  to  break  open  the  door  of  the  church,  and  to  cut 
down  the  tree  from  the  branches  of  which  was  hung  the  bell  which  called 
the  Christians  to  morning  and  evening  service.  On  any  other  occasion, 
^  it  would  have  been  deemed  an  offense  against  the  national  usages  to  thwart 
the  infuriate  chief  in  his  purpose;  but  the  menace  against  the  church 
aroused  the  zeal  of  a  venerable  octogena'rian  who  had  embraced  the 
Christian  faith.  He  fell  on  his  knees,  and  having  made  a  short  prayer,  he 
rushed  to  the  church  door,  just  as  the  savage  chief  was  raising  his 
^  tomahawk  to  demolish  its  portals  ;  placed  his  bald  head  before  the  upraised 
weapon,  and  exclaimed  :  “  The  stroke  of  the  tomahawk  would  fall  much 
better  upon  my’ head,  than  upon  a  house  consecrated  to  God!”  The 
infidel  was  lost  in  amazement :  “  Strike,”  said  the  Christian,  “  I  promise 
publicly  that  no  vengeance  shall  be  taken  for  my  death  ;  neither  the  public 
nor  he  who  will  have  dealt  me  the  death-stroke,  shall  inflict  or  suffer  any 
penalty  for  it:  but  I  cannot  see  with  my  eyes,  that  either  the  sanctity  of 
the  house  dedicated  to  the  service  of  God  should  be  profaned,  or  that  the 
voice  which  summons  us  to  prayer  should  be  hushed  !”  The  infidel  chief 
was' abashed,  and  he  desisted  from  his  purpose. 

Examples  so  heroic  could  not  but  exercise  a  powerful  influence  on  the 
neighboring  tribes.  The  good  Father  Ragueneau  expresses  the  delight 
with  which  his  soul  overflowed  in  the  following  passage  : 

“Without  doubt  tlie  angels  of  heaven  have  been  rejoiced  at  seeing,  that 
in  all  the  villages  of  this  country  the  faith  is  respected,  and  that  Cliristians 
now  glory  in  that  name  which  was  in  reproach  but  a  few  years  ago.  For 
my  part,  I  could  never  have  hoped  to  see,  even  after  fifty  years  of  labor. 


1  llelatioD,  p.  20-21. 


2  Ibi.l  p.  22. 


3  Ibid  p.  22-24. 


THE  HURON  MISSIONS. 


815 


one  tenth  part  of  the  piety,  of  the  virtue  and  sanctity,  of  which  I  have 
been  an  eye-witness  in  the  visits  made  to  those  churches,  which  have  but 
lately  grown  up  in  the  bosom  of  infidelity.  It  has  given  me  a  sensible 
delight  to  witness  the  diligence  of  Christians,  who  anticipated  the  light  of 
the  sun  to  come  to  the  public  prayers ;  and  who,  though  harassed  with 
toil,  came  again  in  immense  throngs  before  night  to  render  anew  their 
homages  to  God  :  to  see  the  little  children  emulating  the  piety  of  their 
parents,  and  accustoming  themselves,  from  the  most  tender  age,  to  offer 
up  to  God  their  little  sufferings,  griefs,  and  labors.  Often  little  girls,  while 
engaged  in  gathering  wood  for  the  fire  in  the  adjoining  forests,  can  find 
no  employment  more  agreeable  than  to  recite  the  Rosary,  seeking  to  out¬ 
strip  one  another  in  this  exercise  of  piety.  But  what  has  charmed  me 
most,  is  to  see  that  the  sentiments  of  faith  have  penetrated  so  deeply  into 
the  hearts  of  those  whom  we  but  lately  called  barbarians,  —  and  I  can 
say  it  with  entire  truth  —  that  divine  grace  has  destroyed,  in  most  of 
them,  the  fears,  the  desires,  and  the  joys  inspired  heretofore  by  the 
feelings  of  nature.”’ 

The  following  touching  anecdotes  will  serve  still  further  to  illustrate  this 
triumph  of  divine  grace.  We  condense  them  from  the  Relation:'^ 

“  A  small  child  six  years  old  fell  dangerously  sick  in  the  mission  of 
St.  Michael.  His  mother,  seeing  the  excess  of  his  sufferings,  and  the 
approaches  of  death  to  her  dearly  beloved  and  only  child,  could  not 
restrain  her  tears.  ‘  My  mother,’  exclaimed  the  child,  ‘  why  do  you  weep? 
Your  tears  will  not  restore  me  to  health  ;  rather  let  us  pray  God  together, 
that  He  would  make  me  happy  in  heaven.’  After  some  prayers,  the 
mother  said:  ‘My  son,  I  must  carry  you  to  St.  Mary’s,  that  the  French 
Fathers  may  restore  you  to  health.’  ‘  Alas !  my  mother,’  rejoined  the 
little  innocent,  ‘  I  have  a  fire  which  burns  in  my  head, — can  they  extin¬ 
guish  it?  I  dream  no  longer  of  life  ;  have  no  more  solicitude  for  me;  but 
I  will  admonish  you  of  my  approaching  end,  and  I  will  then  beg  you  to 
carry  me  to  St.  Mary’s,  for  I  wish  to  die  there,  and  to  be  buried  among 
the  good  Christians.’  ” 

Some  days  afterwards,  the  child  admonished  the  mother  that  it  was  time 
to  carry  him  to  St.  Mary’s,  as  his  end  was  approaching.  It  was  a  custom 
of  the  tribe,  that  when  one  was  on  the  eve  of  death,  a  multitude  assembled 
to  perform  the  superstitious  ceremonies  of  the  country.  When  the  child 
beheld  the  gathering  throng,  he  exclaimed;  “Alas  !  my  mother;  would 
you  have  me  sin  on  the  very  eve  of  death  ?  No,  I  renounce  all  these 
superstitions  ;  I  wish  to  die  like  a  good  Christian.”  The  Relation  closes 
the  account  with  these  words  : 

“  This  little  angel  was  brought  to  us,  and  died  in  our  arms,  praying  until 
death,  and  assuring  us  that  he  was  going  straight  to  heaven,  where  he 
would  pray  to  God  for  us  ;  and  he  even  asked  his  mother  to  inform  him, 
for  which  of  his  relations  he  should  pray  most,  when  he  would  be  with 
God,  and  when  his  prayers  would  without  doubt  be  heard.  He  w;as  heard; 
for  shortly  after  his  death,  one  of  his  uncles  who  had  been  among  those 
who  had  been  the  most  rebellious  to  the  faith  in  this  whole  country,  as 
well  as  one  of  his  aunts,  demanded  instruction  at  our  hands,  and  became 
Christians.” 

Similar  to  this  is  another  incident  of  a  little  girl  of  five  years,  who  having 


1  Iltlation,  p,  ‘24,  *25. 


2  Ibid  p.  26,  scq. 


816 


EARLY  CATHOLIC  MISSIONS. 


attended  morning  and  evening  prayers  with  great  assiduity,  and  having 
persevered  in  this  even  against  the  prohibition  of  her  parents,  was 
permitted  to  receive  baptism.  Some  time  afterwards  she  was  taken  dan¬ 
gerously  ill.  Her  infidel  parents  summoned  a  medicine  man,  or  juggler, 
to  her  bedside,  and  he  began  his  incantations.  The  little  girl,  though 
very  low,  had  yet  strength  enough  to  protest  against  the  superstitious 
rites.  She  said :  “  I  am  a  Christian  ;  the  devils  have  no  longer  power 
over  me  ;  I  do  not  consent  to  the  sin  which  you  are  commiting  in  consult¬ 
ing  the  evil  one  ;  I  wish  no  such  remedies  ;  God  alone  will  heal  me.”  The 
parents,  awed  by  this  appeal,  compelled  the  juggler  to  retire.  The  child 
on  the  same  day  begged  to  be  carried  to  the  church,  assuring  the 
bystanders  that  she  would  be  healed,  wliich  in  fact  took  place.  Her 
parents  were  converted  and  demanded  baptism. 

The  Relation  gives  also  a  touching  account  of  a  girl  of  fifteen,  who  had 
been  taken  prisoner  late  in  the  previous  winter  (1647-8)  by  a  hostile 
tribe.  Though  imbued  with  the  faith,  she  had  not  yet  received  baptism. 
While  weeping  in  her  captivity,  she  fervently  prayed  that  God  would 
preserve  her  purity,  which  was  greatly  endangered,  and  that  he  would 
grant  her  the  grace  to  return  to  the  station  of  St.  Mary’s,  in  order  tl;at  she 
might  receive  baptism.  Her  prayer  was  heard  ;  she  felt  a  full  assurance 
that  her  deliverance  was  at  hand  ;  she  threw  herself  into  the  first  path 
with  which  she  met,  and,  without  guide  other  than  her  guardian  angel, 
without  provisions,  without  protection,  she  traveled  on  foot  a  rugged 
journey  of  240  miles,  and  arrived  in  safety  at  St.  Mary’s,  where  she 
received  the  long  sighed  for  grace  of  baptism,  and  became  a  model  of 
virtue  to  the  neophytes.  The  Relation  concludes  this  branch  of  the 
subject  as  follows : 

This  chapter  would  be  endless,  were  I  to  recount  all  the  triumphs  of 
grace  among  these  poor  savages,  wliich  excite  our  admiration  more  and 
more  every  day,  and  for  which  we  will  bless  God  forever  in  heaven,  without 
lassitude  or  disgust.  I  cannot,  however,  omit  to  mention  a  sentiment 
almost  universal  among  a  multitude  of  good  Cliristians,  who  having  lost 
all  their  property,  their  children,  and  whatever  they  held  dear  in  this 
world,  and  being  on  the  point  of  abandoning  their  country  to  escape  the 
cruelty  of  the  Iroquois,  their  enemies,  yet  thank  God  and  say :  ‘  My  God ! 
be  thou  blessed  forever  !  I  cannot  regret  these  losses,  since  faiih  has 
tauo'ht  me  that  the  love  which  Thou  bearest  towards  Christians  is  not  for 
the  goods  of  this  earth,  but  for  those  of  eternity  ;  I  bless  Thee  m  the  midst 
of  my  losses  as  cheerfully  as  I  ever  did  before  ;  Thou  art  my  Father,  and 
it  is  enouiih  for  me  to  know  that  Thou  lovest  me.  to  make  me  content  with 
all  the  evils  which  may  happen.’  But  what  astonislies  me  most  in  all  this, 
is  to  beliold  that  these  sentiments  do  not  come  in  tardily,  after  nature  and 
passion  have  swayed  the  first  motions  of  tlie  heart ;  but  that  grace  often 
anticipates  and  controls  even  those  first  sallies,  directing  them  to  lieaven 
more  promptly  than  to  earth.  May  God  be  blessed  forever  for  all  this  !”' 

Such  was  the  happy  condition  of  the  Huron  missions,  which  thus 
rivaled  tliose  of  Paraguay  in  Soutli  America,  though  on  a  more  reduced 


l  Ileliitioti,  p.  32,  S3. 


THE  HURON  MISSIONS. 


317 


scale.  The  snow-clad  wilderness  of  the  North  produced  as  lovely  fruits 
for  heaven,  as  did  the  sunny  climes  of  the  South ;  and  the  same  skillful 
hands  cultivated  both  portions  of  the  vineyard.  Nor  does  the  parallel  stop 
here.  Both  missions  were  broken  up  by  violence,  when  at  the  very  height 
of  their  prosperity  :  that  of  Paraguay  by  the  heartless  policy  of  the  Por¬ 
tuguese  court  under  the  administration  of  the  ever  infamous  Pombal ;  and 
that  of  the  Hurons,  by  instruments  scarcely  more  fierce — the  implacable 
Iroquois.  God  permitted  both  catastrophes,  in  the  mysterious  and 
unsearchable  ways  of  His  providence ;  and  both  peopled  heaven  with 
martyrs  from  among  the  Indian  tribes. 

The  Iroquois  fell  upon  the  Huron  wigwams  at  two  different  times  :  first, 
on  the  4th  of  July,  1648,  when  they  destroyed  the  two  flourishing  frontier 
Christian  villages  composing  the  mission  of  St.  Joseph  ;  and  secondly,  on 
the  16th  of  March,  1649,  when  a  thousand  hostile  savages  massacred  the 
inhabitants,  and  scattered  the  glories  of  the  mission  of  St.  Ignatius.  In 
the  former  invasion.  Father  Anthony  Daniel  fell,  the  proto-martyr  of  the 
Jesuits  in  North  America,'  as  he  had  been  one  of  the  first  pioneers  of  the 
Huron  mission ;  in  the  latter,  Father  John  de  Brebeuf  and  Gabriel  Lalle- 
mant,  laid  down  their  lives  for  the  faith,  amidst  the  most  excruciating 
tortures.  We  will  glance  rapidly  at  the  history  of  both  these  melancholy 
occurrences,  condensing  the  very  detailed  account  of  them  given  in  the 
Relation  already  quoted. 

The  principal  village  of  the  two  which  composed  the  mission  of  St. 
Joseph,  numbered  about  four  hundred  families.  Almost  all  the  men 
were  absent  on  the  chase,  or  on  a  warlike  expedition.  Father  Daniel, 
who  had  charge  of  the  mission,  was  just  finishing  Mass,  and  the  Chris¬ 
tians  according  to  custom  had  filled  the  church  about  sunrise,  when  the 
alarm  was  given,  and  the  cry  “  To  arms”  resounded  through  the  village. 
The  Iroquois  had  stolen  upon  the  town  unperceived  during  the  night, 
and  they  now  burst  with  their  fierce  war-whoops  upon  the  inhabitants, 
thus  taken  by  surprise  and  unprepared  for  defense.  “  Some  flew  to  the 
combat,  others  fled  panic-stricken  ;  Father  Daniel  throwing  himself 
hastily  kmong  the  thickest  of  the  combatants,  where  the  peril  was  greatest, 
encouraged  his  neophytes  to  make  a  noble  defense ;  and  .  .  he  spoke  in 
a  tone  so  animated,  as  to  make  a  deep  impression  on  those  hearts  which 
had  hitherto  proved  most  rebellious,  and  to  impart  to  them  a  Christian 
spirit.”  The  crowd  of  applicants  for  baptism  proved  so  great,  that  the 
Father  was  constrained  by  the  emergency  to  steep  his  handkerchief  in 
water,  and  to  baptize  the  multitude  by  aspersion.  The  combat  waxed 
warmer  and  warmer  ;  a  multitude  of  Christians  just  baptized  exchanged 
an  earthly  robe  of  innocence  for  a  heavenly  garment  of  glory  :  the  Hurons 
were  overpowered  by  superior  numbers,  and  the  Iroquois  became  masters 
of  the  place.  Father  Daniel  was  entreated  to  fly,  and  he  could  easily  have 
effected  his  escape.  But  he  recollected  that  many  infirm  and  old  persons 
had  been  previously  prepared  for  baptism  ;  he  hastily  fle'^  around  the 
cabins  of  the  village,  baptizing  these,  and  a  multitude  of  infants ;  and, 
2F2 


318 


EARLY  CATHOLIC  MISSIONS. 


finding  the  houses  already  in  flames,  he  betook  himself  to  the  church, 
wishing  to  die  there  near  the  altar  of  God.  He,  found  it  already  full  of 
Christians,  or  of  catechumens  who  eagerly  demanded  baptism.  He 
baptized  some,  gave  absolution  to  others,  and  exclaimed  to  the  assembled 
multitude  :  “  My  brethren,  we  shall  to-day  be  together  in  heaven!”' 

The  Iroquois  surround  the  church  with  a  horrible  outcry.  Father 
Daniel  cries  out,  at  the  top  of  his  voice  :  “  Fly,  my  brethren,  fly  1  and 
bear  with  you  your  faith  even  to  the  last  breath  !  For  my  part,  I  must 
die  here,  and  here  abide,  so  long  as  I  shall  see  a  soul  to  gain  for  heaven  ; 
and  dying  to  save  you,  my  life  is  to  me  as  nothing:  —  we  shall  meet 
again  in  heaven  !  ”  Meantime,  while  his  neophytes  are  flying  in  all 
directions  ;  this  good  shepherd  goes  forth  to  meet  the  enemy  :  tlie  fierce 
war  shout  is  hushed  :  rage  is  succeeded  by  a  moment  of  awful  silence; 
the  appearance  of  the  man,  his  earnest  manner,  his  face  all  radiant  with 
the  light  of  heaven,  had  stricken  awe  into  every  savage  bosom.  Kallying, 
however,  after  a  moment’s  hesitancy,  they  rush  upon  him  with  savage 
cries;  a  hundred  arrows  pierce  him,  and  a  miisket  ball  enters  his  body 
passing  near  the  heart.  Father  Daniel  falls  dead  :  the  shepherd  has 
given  his  life  for  his  flock,  with  the  divine  assurance  of  finding  it  anew  in 
heaven. 

Finding  that  he  had  fallen,  the  savages  rushed  upon  him,  .tore  off  his 
clothing  and  mangled  his  body,  treating  it  with  every  indignity.  At 
length,  the  church  being  already  in  flames,  his  body  was  cast  into  the 
fire,  and  the  good  Father’s  sacrifice  became  a  holocaust.  He  and  his 
beloved  church  were  consumed  in  the  same  flames.  He  had,  by  striking 
awe  into  the  savages  and  riveting  their  attention  on  himself,  contributed 
to  save  the  lives  of  many  of  his  flock,  who  were  thus  enabled  to  escape. 

Thus  died  Anthony  Daniel,  the  proto-martyr  of  North  America.  A 
native  of  Dieppe  in  France,  born  of  wealthy  and  respectable  parents,  he 
had  entered  at  an  early  age  into  the  society  of  the  Jesuits.  Chosen  for 
the  Huron  mission,  he  had  labored  among  these  people  for  fourteen 
years,  indefatigable  in  his  zeal,  and  panting  daily  for  the  crown  of 
martyrdom.  He  was  remarkable  “  for  heroic  courage,  untiring  patience, 
unalterable  meekness,  and  a  charity  which  could  excuse  all  things,  bear 
with  all  things,  and  love  every  body..  His  humility  was  sincere,  his 
obedience  entire,  and  he  was  always  ready  to  do  everything  and  to  suffer 
everything.  His  zeal  animated  him  even  unto  death,  which  though  sudden, 
was  not  unexpected.  For  he  always  carried  his  life  in  his  hands  ;  and 
during  the  nine  years  that  he  had  been  employed  in  the  frontier  Christian 
villages,  on  a  mission  which  was  most  exposed  to  the  enemy,  he  had 
sighed,  with  hope  and  with  love,  for  that  death  which  finally  fell  to 
his  lot.”  ^ 

But  two  days  before  his  glorious  death,  he  had  finished  a  spiritual 
retreat  at  the  house  of  St.  Mary’s,  and  had  made  a  general  confession 
with  a  view ‘to  prepare  himself  for  eternity.  Inflamed  with  renewed  zeal, 

1  Relation,  p.  10-11  2  Relation,  p.  13. 


THE  HURON  MISSIONS. 


319 


he  would  not  consent  to  remain  even  for  a  day  with  his  brethren  to  enjoy 
a  brief  repose,  but  hastened  back  to  his  mission,  having  a  sort  of  instinctive 
feeling  that  he  was  needed  there.  On  the  3rd  of  July,  he  preached  his 
last  sermon  to  his  dear  neophytes,  bidding  them,  with  tears  in  his  eyes, 
to  prepare  for  death  ;  on  the  4th,  he  fell  a  martyr,  as  we  have  seen.  In 
the  words  of  the  Relation :  “  He  left  after  him  an  example  of  every 
virtue;  the  savages,  even  those  who  were  infidels,  cherished  so  strong 
an  attachment  for  his  memory,  as  to  allow  us  to  say  with  truth,  that  he 
had  charmed  the  hearts  of  all  who  had  ever  known  him.’^  * 

We  must  now  turn  to  another  scene  of  horror  and  carnage,  more 
dreadful  far  than  the  one  we  have  just  attempted  feebly  to  describe. 
Encouraged  by  their  former  success,  the  Iroquois  returned  early  in  the 
spring  of  the  following  year —  1649  ;  and  on  the  16th  of  March,  a 
thousand  warriors  attacked  the  Christian  village  of  St.  Ignatius  at  break 
of  day,  while  the  inhabitants  were  all  buried  in  sleep.  They  carried  the 
place  by  assault,  put  men,  women  and  children  to  death,  and  set  fire  to 
the  cabins.  Out  of  four  hundred  inhabitants,  but  three  escaped  over  the 
snow  to  carry  the  alarm  to  the  village  of  St.  Louis,  but  a  league  distant ! 
The  Iroquois  followed  up  their  success,  and  before  sunrise  surrounded 
this  village,  which  was  fortified  with  a  strong  pine  palisade.  At  their 
approach,  many  of  the  women  and  children  fled  to  the  neighboring  towns. 
About  eighty  valiant  Hurons  resolved  to  defend  the  place  to  the  last 
extremity.  A  desperate  conflict  ensued  ;  but  after  thirty  of  the  invaders 
had  been  killed,  and  a  great  number  wounded,  the  palisades  were  forced, 
and  the  enemy  rushed  in,  overpowering  their  feeble  adversaries,  and 
carrying  everything  before  them.  Being  well  provided  with  fire  arms, 
which  they  had  obtained  from  their  neighbors,  the  Dutch  in  New  York, 
they  were  an  overmatch  for  the  Hurons,  whom  »they  now  butchered 
almost  without  resistance.  They  set  fire  to  the  town,  and  cast  into  the 
flames  the  old,  the  infirm,  the  wounded,  and  such  small  children  as  had 
not  been  able  to  effect  their  escape.  From  the  central  missionary  station 
of  St.  Mary's,  but  a  league  distant,  the  flames  were  discovered  at  nine 
o’clock'  in  the  morning  ;  and  the  sad  forebodings  of  the  good  Fathers  who 
dwelt  there  were  soon  confirmed  by  a  messenger  who  had  escaped  from 
the  massacre.  ^ 

In  the  village  of  St.  Louis  there  resided  at  the  time  of  the  assault  two 
Jesuit  Fathers,  John  de  Brebeuf  and  Gabriel  Lallemant,  who  had  charge 
of  this,  and  of  four  other  neighboring  villages,  which  formed  but  one  of 
the  eleven  Huron  and  Algonquin  missions  before  spoken  of : 

“Some  of  the  Christians  had  entreated  the  Fathers  to  preserve  their 
lives  for  the  glory  of  God,  which  could  have  been  very  easily  effected, 
since  at  the  first  alarm  more  than  five  hundred  had  escaped  with  ease  to  a 
place  of  security;  but  their  zeal  would  not  allow  them  to  do  this,  and  the 
salvation  of  their  flock  was  dearer  to  them  than  the  love  of  life.  They 
employed  every  moment  of  their  time,  as  the  most  precious  of  their  whole 


1  Relation,  p.  14 


2  Ibid.  p.  8&-6. 


820 


EARLY  CAT  HO  I.  IC  MISSIONS. 


lives  ;  and  during  the  hottest  of  the  combat,  tlieir  lieart  was  all  on  fire  for 
the  salvation  of  souls.  One  of  them  was  at  the  breach  baptizing  the 
catechumens;  the  other  was  giving  absolution  to  the  neophytes;  and 
both  were  busy  in  animating  the  Christians  to  die  in  sentiments  of  piety, 
which  consoled  them  in  the  midst  of  their  misfortunes.  .  .  An  uncon¬ 
verted  Huron  seeing  things  desperate,  spoke  of  flight :  but  a  Christian, 
named  Stephen  Annaotaha,  the  most  distinguished  of  the  whole  village 
for  his  courage  and  for  his  exploits  against  the  enemy,  would  not  hear  of 
it.  ‘What  V  he  exclaimed,  ‘  shall  we  abandon  these  good  Fathers,  who 
for  our  sakes  have  exposed  their  own  lives  ?  The  love  they  have  for  our 
salvation  will  be  the  cause  of  their  death ;  there  is  no  longer  time  for  them 
to  fly  across  the  snows.  Let  us  then  die  with  them,  and  in  their  company 
we  will  go  to  heaven.’  This  chief  had  made  a  general  confession  but  a 
few  days  before,  having  had  a  presentiment  of  the  threatened  danger,  and 
having  said  that  he  wished  death  to  find  him  ripe  for  heaven.  And  in 
effect,  both  he  and  many  other  Christians  displayed  so  much  fervor,  that 
we  can  never  sufficiently  bless  the  ways  of  God  towards  His  elect,  whom 
His  providence  watches  over  with  love  at  every  moment,  in  life  and  in 
death.  This  whole  multitude  of  Christians  fell,  for  the  most  part,  alive 
into  the  hands  of  the  enemy,  and  with  them  our  two  Fathers,  the  pastors 
of  that  church.  They  were  not  killed  immediately  ;  God  reserved  for 
them  more  glorious  crowns.” ‘ 

Having  taken  the  two  villages  of  St.  Ignatius  and  St.  Louis  in  one  day, 
the  Iroquois  dispatched  couriers  on  the  same  evening  to  reconnoiter  that 
of  St.  Mary’s.  The  council  of  warriors  resolved  to  attack  it  the  next 
morning,  the  17th  of  Mdrch  ;  but  on  their  march,  an  advanced  detach¬ 
ment  of  two  hundred  Iroquois  were  met  by  a  body  of  Hurons  who  had 
sallied  from  the  village  of  St.  Mary’s  ;  and,  after  a  severe  struggle,  the 
former  were  forced  to  retreat,  and  were  pursued  till  they  took  shelter 
within  the  paliside  of  the  destroyed  village  of  St.  Louis.  Here  the 
Hurons  succeeded  in  killing  many  and  in  making  thirty  prisoners.  Mean¬ 
time  the  main  body  of  the  Iroquois,  having  heard  of  the  discomfiture  of 
their  brethren,  came  upon  the  Hurons  in  the  midst  of  their  victory.  Long 
and  fiercely  raged  the  battle  within  and  near  the  palisade  of  St.  Louis  ;  but 
at  length,  after  the  conflict  had  been  protracted  till  late  in  the  night,  the 
Iroquois  were  again  victorious,  all  the  Hurons  having  been  either  killed 
or  wounded.  But  the  victory  was  dearly  bought :  a  hundred  Iroquois 
were  among  the  slain,  and  their  head  chief  was  dangerously  wounded.^ 

During  the  whole  night  of  the  17th,  the  French  at  St.  Mary’s  were 
under  arms,  hourly  expecting  an  assault.  The  Jesuit  Fathers  were 
engaged  in  fervent  prayer  prostrate  before  the  altar.  “  We  considered 
ourselves,”  they  say  in  the  delation,  “as  so  many  victims  consecrated  to 
our  Lord,  who  ought  to  await  patiently  the  hour  when  we  shall  be  immo¬ 
lated  for  His  glory,  without  seeking  either  to  retard  or  to  hasten  it.”^  A 
profound  silence  prevailed  during  the  whole  day  of  the  18th,  which  was 
spent  by  the  Christians  in  prayer,  and  by  the  Iroquois  in  consultation. 
On  the  morning  of  the  19th,  the  feast  of  the  great  St.  Joseph,  chief  patron 
of  the  mission,  a  sudden  panic  seized  upon  the  enemy,  who  fled  precipi- 


1  B«latioa,  p.  37. 


2  Ibid.  p.  40,  41. 


3  Ibid.  p.  42. 


THE  HURON  MISSIONS. 


321 


tately,  carrying  with  them  such  of  their  prisoners  as  were  able  to  travel, 
and  as  they  had  not  doomed  to  immediate  death.  The  dreadful  fate  of  the 
wounded  and  of  other  prisoners,  is  thus  graphically  described  in  the 
Relation  : 

“  As  for  the  other  prisoners  whom  they  had  doomed  to  immediate 
death,  they  bound  them  to  pine  stakes  driven  into  the  earth  in  the  difter- 
ent  cabins,  to  which,  in  leaving  the  village,  they  set  fire  on  all  sides: 
taking  delight  on  their  departure  at  the  piteous  cries  of  these  poor  victims 
perishing  in  the  midst  of  the  flames, —  of  infants  roasted  by  the  side  of 
their  mothers,  and  of  husbands  who  saw  their  wifes  roasted  near  them.”' 

Thus  were  scattered  the  earthly  glories  of  the  Huron  missions  !  Thus 
did  many  of  the  Huron  Christians  pass  from  an  earthly  to  a  heavenly 
habitation.  Happy  exchange !  Heaven  peopled  from  among  the  wild 
red  men  of  the  wilderness  !  Here  truly  were  exhibited  scenes  worthy  of 
the  primitive  Church ! 

The  consequences  of  the  two  hostile  invasions  described  above,  and  the 
apprehension  of  similar  attacks  in  future,  caused  the  abandonment  of 
fifteen  of  the  Huron  villages;^  the  Christians  of  which  were  scattered 
among  the  neighboring  tribes,  bearing  with  them  only  their  faith  and 
their  virtues.  The  Iroquois  had  robbed  them  of  all  else.  To  increase 
the  calamity,  a  dreadful  famine  came  on,  and  the  condition  of  the  Hurons 
who  had  survived  the  massacre  became  deplorable  in  the  extreme.*  The 
Jesuits  wept  and  suflered  with  them,  cheering  their  drooping  spirits  with 
bright  visions  of  paradise.  In  the  midst  of  all  their  sufferings,  the  good 
Fathers  rejoiced  at  the  visible  triumphs  of  grace  in  the  lives  of  their  dear 
neophytes,  to  whom  they  clung  in  life  and  in  death. 

At  first  the  missionaries  had  intended  to  emigrate  westward  with  the 
remnant  of  the  Hurons,  to  the  distant  Island  of  Ekaentoton  or  St.  Mary's; 
but  the  Huron  chiefs  being  averse  to  removing  so  far  from  the  bones  of 
their  deceased  relatives,  and  having  in  an  eloquent  speech  of  three  hours 
implored  the  Fathers  to  make  the  neighboring  Island  of  St.  Joseph’s  their 
centi-al  mission,  their  request  was  granted,  and  the  purpose  of  moving 
farther  west  was  postponed  for  a  time.'* 

In  our  next  paper  we  will  conclude  this  interesting  subject  of  the 
Huron  missions  ;  and  will  present  a  rapid  sketch  of  the  edifying  life  and 
glorious  death  of  the  great  Apostle  of  the  Hurons  —  the  Xavier  of 'North 
America — John  de  Brebeuf. 

1  Relation,  p.  43-  2  Ibid.  p.  86-7.  3  Ibid.  4  Ibid,  p.  92,  seq. 


24 


XVII.  EARLY  CATHOLIC  MISSIONS  IN  THE 

NORTH  WEST. 


THIRD  PAPER.  —  FATHERS  DE  BREBEUF  AND  LALLEMANT.* 

Martryrdoin  of  Fathers  de  Breheuf  and  Lallemant  —  Their  remains  solemnly  interred  —  Their 
heroism  —  Details  of  their  martyrdom  —  Horrible  cruelties  —  Life  of  Father  Lallemant — Hig 
reasons  for  devoting  himself  to  the  Indian  missions — The  Aloysius  of  the  Huron  missions-— 
And  the  Xavier  —  Father  John  de  Breheuf  —  Sketch  of  his  life  —  Ilis  first  attempt  to  found 
the  Huron  Mission  —  His  ardent  zeal  —  And  spirit  of  prayer  —  His  love  of  the  cross  —  He 
pants  for  martyrdom — His  difficulties  and  sufferings  among  the  Hurons  —  He  is  exposed  to 
imminent  danger  of  his  life  —  His  humility  —  His  unceasing  labors  —  His  calmness  —  And  noble 
courage  —  The  results  of  his  zeal  — The  Apostle  of  the  Hurons. 

In  our  second  Paper  we  endeavored, to  draw  a  rapid  sketch  of  the  rise,  pro¬ 
gress,  and  disasters  of  the  Huron  missions.  In  the  present,  we  will  attempt 
a  biographical  notice  of  the  two  Fathers,  John  de  Brebeuf  and  Gabriel 
Lallemant,  whom  we  left  captives  in  the  hands  of  the  implacable  Iroquois. 
And  in  order  to  resume  the  thread  of  the  narrative,  we  will  first  speak  of 
their  glorious  death,  or  rather  martyrdom, — for  they  voluntarily  gave 
their  lives  for  the  love  of  Christ  and  the  salvation  of  the  neighbor  ;  —  and 
then,  we  will  furnish  a  summary  account  of  the  life  and  labors  of  each.* 
On  the  morning  after  the  flight  of  the  Iroquois,  the  Jesuit  Fathers  at 
•St.  Mary’s  having,  through  some  Huron  captives  who  had  escaped, 
received  intelligence  of  the  death  of  Fathers  de  Brebeuf  and  Lallemant, 
sent  one  of  their  number,  with  seven  Frenchmen  as  an  escort,  to  find  and 
bring  back  their  mortal  remains.  The  messengers,  on  reaching  the  spot 
where  the  martyrdom  of  these  illustrious  missionaries  had  been  consum¬ 
mated,  witnessed  a  scene  which  froze  their  very  souls  with  horror.  Every 
thing  betokened  the  fiendish  barbarity  of  the  merciless  Iroquois.  Having 
reverently  gathered  up  the  mangled  remains  of  the  two  Fathers,  they 
brought  them  back  to  the  mission  of  St.  Mary’s,  where  they  were  solemnly 
rinterred  on  the  21st  of  March,  which  fell  on  a  Sunday.  At  the  funeral, 
all  were  “  filled  with  so  much  consolation  and  with  sentiments  of  a 
devotion  so  tender,  that  every  one  ardently  desired,  rather  than  feared,  a 
similar  death  ;  and  that  all  would  have  deemed  themselves  thrice  happy, 
to  have  obtained  from  God  the  grace  of  shedding  their  blood  and  laying 
down  their  lives  under  similar  circumstances.  No  one  could  bring  himself 

*  “  Rehition  dc  ce  qui  est  passe  en  la  Mission  des  Peres  de  la  compagnie  de  Jesus 
aux  Hurons,  pais  de  la  Nouvelle  France,  aux  annees  1648  et  1649.  Par  P.  Paul 
Kaguencau,  de  la  mcsnie  Compagnie.  A  Paris,  1650.” 

1  The  Relation  devotes  two  whole  Chapters  to  this  part  of  the  subject ;  from  p.  44  to  p.  86. 

322 


FATHERS  DE  BREBEUP  AND  LALLEMANT.  323 


to  pray  to  God  for  their  repose,  as  if  they  stood  in  need  of  prayer ;  but 
all  raised  their  hearts  to  heaven,  where  they  had  no  doubt  the  souls  of  the 
departed  already  were.”* 

From  the  narrative  of  some  fugitive  Huron  captives,  who  had  been  eye¬ 
witnesses  of  all  the  circumstances  attending  their  death,  the  following 
details  are  gathered.  Immediately  after  their  capture,  they  were  both 
stripped  of  their  clothing,  had  their  finger  nails  torn  out  by  the  roots,  and 
were  borne  in  savage  triumph  to  the  village  of  St.  Ignatius,  which  had 
been  taken  on  the  same  morning.  On  entering  its  gates,  they  both  received 
a  shower  of  blows  on  their  shoulders,  loins  and  stomach,  —  no  part  of 
their  exposed  bodies  escaping  contumely.  Father  de  Brebeuf,  though 
almost  sinking  under  these  cruel  blows,  and  fainting  from  agony  and  loss 
of  blood,  still  lost  not  courage ;  but,  his  eye  kindling  with  fire,  he 
addressed  the  Christian  Hurons  who  were  his  fellow  captives,  in  the 
following  language  : 

“My  children  !  Let  us  lift  our  eyes  to  heaven  in  the  midst  of  our  suffer¬ 
ings  ;  let  us  remember  that  God  is  a  witness  of  our  torments,  and  that 
He  will  soon  be  our  reward  exceedingly  great.  Let  us  die  in  this  faith, 
and  trust  in  His  goodness  for  the  fulfillment  of  His  promises.  I  feel  more 
for  you  than  for  myself :  but  bear  with  courage  the  few  torments  which 
yet  remain  ;  they  will  all  terminate  with  our  lives  :  the  glory  which  will 
follow  them  will  have  no  end  !  Echon,”  ^  they  replied,  “our  hope  shall 
be  in  heaven,  while  our  bodies  are  suffering  on  earth.  Pray  to  God  for 
us,  that  He  would  grant  us  mercy  :  we  will  invoke  Him  even  unto  death. 

Some  infidel  Hurons,  who  had  proved  obstinate  under  the  preaching  of 
the  missionaries,  and  who,  having  been  long  before  taken  captive  by  the 
Iroquois,  had  become  naturalized  among  them,  were  filled  with  fiendish 
rage  at  the  noble  freedom  with  which  the  captive  Father  spoke.  They 
rushed  upon  him  and  Father  Lallemant,  they  cut  off  the  hands  of  one, 
transpierced  the  body  of  the  other  with  pointed  reeds  and  iron  arrow- 
points  ;  they  applied  red-hot  tomahawks  under  their  armpits  and  over 
their  loins;  they  put  a  collar  around  their  necks  from  which  were  sus¬ 
pended  red-hot  tomahawks,  so  that,  whether  they  stood  erect,  or  bent  on 
either  side,  their  bodies  were  deeply  burnt  with  the  heated  iron  :  in  fine 
they  bound  round  their  bodies  girdles  of  bark  covered  with  pitch 
and  rosin,  to  which  they  set  fire.  Thus  were  the  good  Jesuits  roasted 
with  more  cruelty,  than  had  been  even  St.  Ifawrence  on  his  gridiron  !  Let 
us  now  hear  the  Relation  : 

“  In  the  midst  of  his  torments.  Father  Gabriel  Lallemant  raised  his 
eyes  to  heaven,  joining  his  hands  from  time  to  time,  and  sending  forth 
sighs  to  God  whom  he  invoked  to  his  succor.  Father  John  de  Brebeuf, 
with  the  apparent  insensibility  of  a  rock,  heedless  alike  of  fire  and  flame, 
continued  in  profound  silence,  without  once  venting  a  sigh  or  a  murmur, 
which  astonished  even  his  executioners  :  without  doubt  his  heart  was  then 
sweetly  reposing  in  the  bosom  of  God  !  After  a  brief  space,  as  if 
returning  to  himself  he  preached  to  those  infidels,  and  more  especially  to 
a  number  of  good  Christian  captives,  who  .showed  compassion  for  his 

1  llelacion,  p.  52-3.  2  The  Huron  name  of  Father  de  Brebeuf.  3  Relatiou  pp.  46-7. 


324 


EARLY  CATHOLIC  MISSIONS. 


sufferings.  His  cruel  executioners,  indignant  at  his  zeal,  in  order  to 
prevent  his  speaking  any  more  of  God,  struck  him  on  the  mouth,  cut  off 
his  nose,  and  tore  away  his  lips ;  but  his  blood  spoke  more  eloquently 
than  his  lips,  and  his  heart  not  having  yet  been  torn  out,  his  tongue  did 
not  fail  to  aid  him  in  recounting  the  mercies  of  God  in  the  midst  of  his 
torments,  and  in  animating  more  than  ever  his  Christian  fellow  captives. 
In  derision  of  baptism,  which  these  good  Fathers  had  so  charitably 
administered  at  the  breach  and  in  the  hottest  of  the  contest,  those  barba- 
rious  enemies  of  the  faith  bethought  themselves  of  baptizing  them  with 
boiling  water.  More  than  twice  or  thrice  their  whole  body  was  inundated 
with  the  scalding  element,  the  infidels  accompanying  the  ablution  with 
heartless  jeers  :  —  ‘  We  bap'tize  you,  that  you  may  be  happy  in  heaven  ; 
for  without  baptism  no  one  can  be  saved  Others  said,  mocking : 
‘  We  treat  you  as  friends,  for  we  will  be  the  cause  of  your  greater  happi¬ 
ness  in  heaven  :  thank  us  for  our  good  offices,  for  the  more  you  suffer,  the 
more  God  will  reward  you.’* 

“  The  more  their  torments  were  redoubled,  the  more  did  the  Fathers 
pray,  that  their  sins  might  not  be  the  cause  of  the  reprobation  of  these 
blinded  infidels,  whom  they  forgave  with  all  their  hearts.  .  .  .  When 
they  were  attached  to  the  stakes  where  they  endured  all  these  tortures, 
and  where  they  were  to  die,  they  fell  on  their  knees,  embraced  the  wood 
with  joy,  and  kissed  it  fervently  as  the  cherished  object  of  their  sighs  and 
prayers,  and  as  a  certain  and  last  pledge  of  their  eternal  salvation.  They 
continued  in  prayer  much  longer  than  pleased  their  barbarous  tormentors. 
These  plucked  out  the  eyes  of  Father  Gabriel  Lallernant,  and  applied  red- 
hot  coals  to  the  orifices  from  which  they  had  been  torn.  Their  sufferings 
did  not  take  place  at  the  same  time.  Father  John  de  Brebeuf  suffered 
for  about  three  hours,  and  expired  at  4  o’clock  in  the  evening  of  the  IGth 
of  March,  the  same  day  on  which  the  village  of  St.  Ignatius  had  been 
captured.  Father  Gabriel  Lallernant  suffered  much  longer :  from  six 
o’clock  of  that  evening,  until  about  nine  o’clock  of  the  following  day,  the* 
17tii  of  March.  Before  their  death  the  hearts  of  both  were  torn  out,  an 
incision  having  been  made  for  this  purpose  under  the  breast ;  and  those 
barbarians  drank  their  blood  while  it  was  still  warm  .  .  .  While  they  were 
yet  living,  pieces  of  flesh  were  cut  off  from  their  thighs,  arms,  and  legs, 
which  were  roasted  and  eaten  before  their  eyes  !  Their  bodies  had  been 
gashed  all  over,  and,  to  increase  their  torments,  red-hot  tomahawks  were 
run  along  the  deep  incisions.  Father  John  de  Brebeuf  had  been  already 
scalped  ;  his  feet  had  been  cut  off,  and  his  thighs  denuded  to  the  very 
bone,  and  one  of  his  cheeks  had  been  divided  by  a  stroke  of  the  tomahawk. 
Father  Gabriel  Lallernant  had  also  received  a  stroke  of  the  murderous 
weapon  on  his  left  ear,  and  the  instrument  had  sunk  deep  into  his  skull, 
laying  bare  the  brain  :  we  could  find  no  part  of  his  body,  from  the  head  to 
the  foot,  which  had  not  been  roasted,  even  while  he  was  living.  Their 
very  tongues  were  roasted,  burning  fire-brands  and  bunches  of  bark 
having  been  repeatedly  thrust  into  their  mouths,  to  prevent  them  from 
invoking,  while  dying,  the  name  and  succor  of  Him,  for  whose  love  they 
were  enduring  all  these  torments.”** 

But  we  sicken  at  these  accumulated  horrors :  we  will  drop  the  veil 
over  them,  and  with  it,  a  tear  over  the  horrible  blindness  and  perverseness 
of  human  nature  when  left  to  its  own  impulses,  without  the  light  of 
grace,  and  the  softening  influence  of  Christian  civilization.  We  will  now 


1  Rulation,  p.  48 


2  Ibid,  p.  50  -51. 


FATHERS  DE  BREBEUF  AND  LALLEMANT.  325 


endeavor  to  draw  a  rapid  sketch  of  the  lives  of  the  two  remarkable  men, 
whose  glorious  martyrdom  we  have  described. 

Father  Lallemaiit  was  in  his  39th  year,  and  he  had  been  but  six  months 
engaged  in  the  Indian  missions  ;  yet  was  he  destined  to  bear  off  one  of 
the  first  crowns.  For  several  years  he  had  begged  with  tears  in  his  eyes 
to  be  sent  on  this  mission,  notwithstanding  that  his  constitution  was  very 
weak  and  his  health  extremely  delicate.  He  could  hope  to  have  little 
.other  bodily  strength,  than  that  which  the  grace  of  God  might  impart. 
In  a  writing'  which  he  drew  at  the  desire  of  his  superiors,  assigning  the 
reasons  why  he  petitioned  to  be  sent  on  the  Indian  mission,  are  found 
the  following  edifying  passages  : 

I  wish  to  labor  on  those  missions :  1st,  to  discharge  the  obligations 
which  I  owe  to  Thee,  0  my  God  !  For  if  Thou  bast  abandoned  pleasure, 
honors, 'health,  joy,  and  life  itself,  to  save  me  a  miserable  sinner,  is  it  more 
than  reasonable  that  I  should  abandon  all  things  after  Thy  example,  for  the 
salvation  of  those  whom  Thou  esteemest  Thine,  who  have  cost  Thee  Thy 
blood,  whom  Thou  hast  loved  even  unto  death,  and  of  whom  Thou  hast 
said  :  “  Whatever  you  have  done  to  one  of  these  least  ones,  you  have  done 
it  to  me  ?  ’  .  .  .  2.  Since  I  have  been  so  miserable  as  to  have  offended  Thy 
goodness,  0  my  Jesus!  Is  it  not  just  that  I  should  atone  for  my  sins  byextra- 
ordinaj  y  sufferings  ;  and  thus  should  walk  before  Thy  face,  all  the  rest  of  my 
life,  with  a  contrite  and  humble  heart  in  the  midst  of  sufferings,  which  thou 
didst  first  endure  for  me.  ■  3d.  T am  indebted  to  my  relations,  to  my  mother 
and  to  my  brothers,  and  I  ought  to  draw  down  upon  them  the  eflfects  of  Thy 
mercy.  My  God,  permit  not  that  any  one  of  this  family,  for  which  Thou 
hast  shown  so  much  love,  should  ever  be  lost  in  Thy  sight,  or  should  ever 
belong  to  the  number  of  those  who  will  blaspheme  Thee  eternally.  Let 
me  be  a  victim  for  them  ;  ‘  for  I  am  prepared  for  stripes,  —  here  burn, 
here  cut,  that  thou  mayst  spare  eternally.’  4.  Yes,  my  Jesus  1  and  my 
love  1  Thy  blood,  which  was  shed  also  for  the  barbarians,  should  be 
efficaciously  applied  to  their  salvation,  and  it  is  for  this  reason,  that  I 
wish  to  co-operate  with  Thy  grace,  and  to  be  immolated  for  them.”  ^ 

Having  left  the  world  at  a  tender  age,  and  abandoned  the  prospects  of 
worldly  promotion  which  tvere  open  to  his  wealthy  and  respectable  family, 
he  seems  to  have  preserved  unsullied  his  baptismal  innocence.  Having 
become  a  Jesuit,  he  walked  so  uprightly  before  God,  as  everywhere  to 
diflfuse  around  him  the  sweet  odor  of  Christ.  Diffident  by  nature,  and 
timid  in  conscience,  he  carefully  fled  from  even  the  shadow  of  sin  ;  yet  he 
was  ever  calm,  and  he  did  not  indulg^in  scruples.  In  France  he  had  gone 
through  a  regular  course  of  studies  with  great  success,  and  he  was  a  pro¬ 
ficient  in  the  languages  and  the  sciences.  During  the  few  months  that  he 
labored  among  the  Hurons,  he  became  a  little  child  with  them,  selecting 
the  lowliest  of  them  for  his  teachers  in  the  difficult  Huron  language,  in 
which  he  had  already  made  great  proficiency.  Born  te  honor  and  dis¬ 
tinction,  he  loved  only  the  Cross,  and  he  clung  to  the  Cross  even  unto 
death.  Revered  as  the  angel  of  the  Huron  mission,  he  was  wholly  uncon¬ 
scious  of  his  own  merits,  and  looked  on  himself  as  the  last  of  his  brethren. 
Mr.  Bancroft  appropriately  styles  him  :  ‘‘  the  gentle  Lallemant.”  He  was 


1  Found  after  his  death,  among  his  papers. 
20 


2  lUlation,  p.  54-5 


i 


32G  EARLY  CATHOLIC  MISSIONS. 

born  at  Paris,  on  the  31st  of  October,  1610  ;  and  he  died  a  martyr  at  the 
stake,  on  the  17th  of  March,  1649,  in  the  39th  year  of  his  age.  Truly 
his  prayer  was  heard:  he  “  was  immolated  for  the  poor  Indians  !”  Only 
Catholicity  can  point  to  examples  so  bright  and  so  heroic  ! 

If  Father  Lallemant  was  the  Aloysius  of  the  Huron  mission.  Father 
John  de  Brebeuf  was  its  Xavier.  The  former  was  a  lamb ;  the  latter  a 
lion :  yet  each  had  many  qualities  distinctive  of  the  other ;  and  the  lion 
and  the  lamb  were  immolated  together,  for  the  love  of  God  and  of  the 
neighbor.  Yet  did  the  lamb  die  much  more  slowly  than  tlie  lion  ! 

Father  John  de  Brebeuf  was  sent  from  France  on  the  Canadian  mission 
in  the  year  1625  by  Father  Peter  Caton,  whose  discrimination  had  marked 
him  out  as  a  suitable  instrument  for  convertinfj  the  savage  tribes  of  New 
France.  As  a  kind  of  apprenticeship  to  his  future  labors,  he  spent  the 
winter  of  1625-6,  wandering  in  the  woods  and  mountains  among  the 
savages  in  the  neighborhood  of  Quebec.  During  this  time,  it  is  impos¬ 
sible  to  tell  how  much  he  suffered  :  hunger,  thirst,  and  cold,  were  the 
constant  attendants  of  the  wild  savage  life.  In  the  spring  of  1626,  he 
penetrated  into  the  Huron  wilderness,  alone  and  on  foot;  the  first  white 
man  perhaps,  certainly  the  first  missionary,  who  ever  entered  its  unexplored 
recesses.  He  soon  mastered  the  difficult  Huron  dialect,  adapted  himself 
in  all  things  to  the  manners  and  habits  of  the  Huron  tribe,  and  succeeded 
so  well  in  making  himself  “  all  to  all,  in  order  to  gain  all  to  Jesus  Christ,** 
that  he  became  the  idol  of  the  savages.' 

In  1629,  the  English  gained  a  temporary  possession  of  Canada;  and, 
with  the  anti-religious  policy  which  has  almost  invariably  marked  that 
rapacious  government,  the  Jesuits  were  forbidden  any  longer  to  prosecute 
their  missions  among  the  Indians.  The  Huron  mission,  commenced  under 
auspices  so  favorable,  was  thus  suddenly  broken  up,  and  Father  de  Brebeuf 
was  compelled  to  return  to  Europe.  France  having  however  soon  regained 
possession  of  Canada,  Father  de  Brebeuf  returned  to  it  in  1633 ;  and  in 
the  spring  of  the  following  year,  he  revisited  his  beloved  Hurons  in  com¬ 
pany  with  Father  Daniel  —  as  we  have  already  seen.  The  Hurons  received 
their  old  Father  Echon  —  so  they  called  him  —  with  open  arms.  He  now 
recommenced  among  them  those  herculean  labors,  which  were  to  close  only 
with  his  death,  fifteen  years  later.  He  seemed  to  be  in  every  respect 
adapted,  both  by  nature  and  by  grace,  to  the  arduous  undertaking  upon 
which  he  had  embarked.  Possessed  of  every  virtue  in  a  heroic  degree, 
burning  with  zeal  for  the  salvation  of  souls,  active  and  indefatigable, 
moulding  his  ardent  temperament  to  every  emergency,  he  was  withal 
emphatically  a  man  of  prayer,  and  he  walked  always  with  God.  Others 
marked  his  manifold  virtues  ;  he  seemed  wholly  unconscious  of  them,  and 
esteemed  himself  the  last  of  men. 

Communion  with  God  by  constant  prayer  was  his  chief  delight,  as  well 
as  the  main  source  of  his  strength.  Tiie  longer  he  lived,  the  more  he 

1  Relation,  p.  59.  Mr.  Bancroft  says  nothing  of  this  first  visit  of  Father  de  Brebeuf,  nor  of  hla 
Bubse(iuent  expulsion  by  the  English  Oovernnient. 


FATHERS  DE  BREBEUF  AND  LALLEMANT.  327 

•i' 

became  addicted  to  prayer.  Often  absorbed  in  God  for  liours  together,  he 
was  detached  from  the  senses,  and  seemed  already  to  be  in  advance  a 
citizen  of  heaven.  In  prayer,  he  was  frequently  favored  by  God  with  extia- 
ordinary  consolations  and  graces.  “  He  superabounded  with  joy  in  all  his 
tribulations,”  like  the  great  apostle  of  the  Gentiles.  By  order  of  his 
superiors,  he  committed  to  writing  an  account  of  many  of  the  wonderful 
things  which  God  was  pleased  to  manifest  to  him  in  prayer.  And  though 
the  cold  skeptic  may  smile  while  reading  the  simple  recital  of  these  wonders, 
yet  to  the  man  of  faith  their  perusal  cannot  but  afford  matter  of  consolation 
and  edification. ‘ 

Yet  his  devotions,  however  much  he  cherished  them,  did  not  interfere 
with  the  active  and  laborious  duties  of  the  mission.  Thi’ouirliout  the 
whole  day,  he  might  be  seen  moving  about  among  the  Hurons,  consoling 
the  sick,  baptizing  the  infants  and  the  dying,  breathing  consolation  into 
the  hearts  of  the  afflicted,  refuting  gainsayers  with  unalterable  patience 
and  meekness,  and  everywhere  diffusing  around  him  the  sweet  odor  of 
Clirist.  In  the  midst  of  all  these  multiplied  labors,  the  unchangeable 
serenity  of  his  countenance  bespoke  the  undisturbed  tranquillity  of  his 
mind  and  its  entire  recollection  in  God.  Always  and  everywhere  he 
^  appealed  the  envoy  of  Him,  “  who  went  about  doing  good  and  healing 
all.”  His  example  captivated  every  heart,  and  his  words  breathed  an 
unction  which  softened  the  most  obdurate. 

When  the  labors  of  the  day  were  over,  when  all  was  hushed  into 
tranquillity  in  the  village,  he  delighted  to  spend  whole  hours  in  prayer, 
and  often  protracted  his*  watchings  until  late  in  the  night.  .  When  his 
strength  was  at  length  exhausted,  and  sleep  overcame  his  wearied  frame, 
he  laid  himself  down  on  the  bare  earth,  without  divesting  himself  of  his 
clothing,  and  took  a  brief  repose,  with  no  other  pillow  than  a  piece  of 
wood.  Long  before  the  dawn,  and  while  all  were  yet  buried  in  sleep,  he 
was  again  at  his  devotions,  which  continued  for  hours.  From  private 
prayer,  he  ascended  the  holy  altar,  and  with  a  countenance  all  radiant 
with  light,  and  with  tears  often  trickling  down  his  cheeks,  he  offered  up 
the  holy  Victim  of  expiation.  After  this,  he  recited  morning  prayers 
with  his  neophytes  who  thronged  the  church ;  and  then  went  through  the 
same  round  of  teaching,  preaching,  visitation  of  the  villagers,  and  of 
incessant  duties,  as  on  the  previous  day.^ 

For  fifteen  years,  he  continued  this  manner  of  life.  Instead  of  relaxing 
in  fervor,  he  increased  in  it  from  day  to  day.  Each  day  he  became 
more  inflamed  with  zeal,  and  more  animated  with  an  ardent  longing  after 
suffering.  The  Cross  v/as  the  great  source  of  his  consolation  and  of  his 
streno-th.  To  become  like  Christ ;  with  Him  “to  be  nailed  to  the 

O 

Cross ;  ”  to  bear  on  his  body  the  marks  of  His  passion,  was  the  great 
aspiration  of  his  soul.  Sufferings  were  his  daily  bread  :  he  banqueted 
only  at  tlie  foot  of  the  Cross  ;  he  gloried  in  nothing  else.  This,  in  fact, 

1  The  Relation  details  many  of  these  wonderful  visitations,  p.  60  feq.  Bancroft  refers  to  them  with' 
a  lurting  sneer.  (II  [.  124) 

2  JveUtiou,  p.  69.  * 


828 


EARLY  CATHOLIC  MISSIONS. 

was  liis  ruling  sentiment,  strong,  as  we  have  seen,  even  in  death. 
Nothing  is  more  frequently  repeated  in  his  Memoirs,  written  by  himself, 
than  the  desire  to  be  immolated  for  Christ.  For  eight  or  ten  days 
together,  he  would  feel  a  “  vehement  impulse  to  die  for  Christ.”  ' 
Under  the  influence  of  this  strong  feeling,  he  made  a  solemn  vow,  in  the 
presence  of  the  blessed  Trinity  and  of  the  whole  court  of  heaven,  not  to 
decline  the  crown  of  martyrdom,  if  God  in  His  mercy,  as  he  humbly 
prayed,  would  grant  him  this  great  and  priceless  favor.^  Having  tluis 
made  himself  a  living  victim  of  divine  love,  he  looked  upon  himself  ever 
after  as  the  soldier  of  the  Cross,  and  he  vowed  never  to  desert  this 
glorious  standard.  He  felt  a  presentiment  that  he  should  seal  his  fliith 
with  his  blood ;  he  incessantly  prayed  and  panted  for  this  glorious 
crown  :  and  heaven  heard  his  vows  and  granted  his  prayers  : 

“  This  good  Father  felt  himself  so  strongly  moved  to  advance  the  glory 
of  God,  and  to  have  only  this  in  view,  that  eleven  years  before  his  death, 
he  bound  himself  by  vow,  to  do  and  to  suffer  everything  during  the 
remainder  of  his  life,  which  he  should  think  would  conduce  to  the 
greater  glory  of  God  :  a  vow  wliich  he  daily  renewed  at  the  altar  at  the 
moment  of  receiving  the  holy  Sacrament.”  ^ 

This  and  the  vow  recorded  above  he  faithfully  kept  to  the  day  of  his 
death.  His  sufferings  and  labors  are  almost  incredible.  Only  the 
strength  of  God,  which  he  received  in  prayer,  could  have  enabled  him  to 
endure  them  all.  Yet  he  never  faltered  for  a  moment :  his  sacrifice  was 
as  clieerful,  as  it  was  entire  and  abiding  : 

“In  the  ardor  of  his  zeal  he  frequently  offered  himself  up  to  God,  to 
endure  all  the  martyrdoms  of  the  world  for  the  conversion  of  this  people. 
Sometime  before  his  death,  he  wrote  as  follows  :  ‘  0  my  God  1  why  art 
Thou  not  known  !  Why  is  not  tlds  barbarous  country  converted  to  Thee  1 
Why  is  not  sin  abolished  !  Why  art  Thou  not  loved  1  Yes,  0  my  God  1 
If  all  the  torments  which  captives  can  endure  in  this  country,  amidst  all 
the  cruelty  of  suffering,  should  fall  to  my  lot,  I  offer  up  myself  to  endure 
them  all  alone  with  my  whole  heart  ?  ’  A  little  later  he  said  :  ‘  For  two 
successive  days  I  have  felt  a  great  desire  of  martyrdom,  and  a  wish  to 
endure  all  the  torments  which  the  martyrs  have  ever  endured.’  ”  * 

■  The  conversion  of  the  Hurons  was  not  effected  without  long  and  painful 
labors,  and  many  sufferings  on  the  part  of  the  missionaries.  The  seed 
was  sown  in  weeping,  which  was  to  bring  forth  fruit  in  rejoicing.  Many 
of  the  savages  clung  with  obstinacy  to  the  superstition  of  their  forefathers. 
Irritated  by  the  Father’s  signal  success,  these  often  conspired  his  death, 
and  endeavored  to  stir  up  the  whole  tribe  against  him.  If  any  misfortune 
befell  the  Hurons  —  if  they  were  unsuccessful  in  the  chase,  or  sulfered 
from  famine  or  sickness  —  the  missionaries,  and  especially  JSchon,  had 
brought  it  all  about. ^  In  1637,  a  contagious  malady  prevailing  in  the 
Huron  encampments,  the  maddening  shout  rang  through  the  cabins  : 
“  Death  to  the  Jesuits  !  death  to  the  Jesuits  !  ”  ®  Amidst  this  outcry  and 
tumult.  Father  de  Brebeuf  moved  about  amongst  the  throng  as  calmly  as  if 

1  “  Sentio  me  vehementer  iinpelli  ad  morieiiJum  pro  Christo.”  , 

2  Relation,  p.  6o-4.  3  Ibid  4  Ihid^  p.  SI.  5  Ibid,  p,  G6 


6  Ibid,  p  67 


FATHERS  DE  BREBEUF  AND  LALLEMANT.  829 


nothing  had  happened.  Providence  threw  a  shield  of  protection  around 
his  person  :  his  hour  had  not  yet  come. 

On  one  occasion,  a  popular  tumult,  stimulated  by  the  chiefs,  stirred  up 
the  whole  village  of  St.  Joseph  against  the  missionaries.  Father  de  Brebeuf 
and  some  of  his  brethren  were  severely  beaten,  and  the  infidels  threatened 
to  burn  them  at  the  stake.  Overawed  however  by  their  unalterable 
meekness  and  calmness  in  the  midst  of  insult,  the  persecutors  desisted 
from  their  fiendish  purpose.  In  the  evening,  when  all  was  still,  the  good 
Father  poured  forth  his  soul  in  prayer,  thanked  God  for  the  privilege  of 
having  suffered  contumely  for  His  sake,  and  was  refreshed  with  one  of  those 
extraordinary  communications  of  heaven,  the  light  of  which  often  broke 
with  dazzling  lustre,  through  the  opening  cloud  of  faith,  on  his  troubled 
spirit.* 

While  he  was  laboring  among  the  savages  of  the  Neutre  tribe,  in  1640, 
a  Huron  chief,  sent  by  his  infidel  enemies  among  the  Hurons,  arrived 
among  the  Neutres,  the  bearer  of  an  embassy  from  his  tribe.  The  war 
council  was  convened,  and  the  envoy  offered  a  present  of  nine  tomahawks, 
on  condition  that  they  would  murder  Echon,  in  such  a  manner  that  the 
responsibility  of  the  deed  should  not  rest  with  the  Hurons.  The  wicked 
proposition  was  discussed  during  the  whole  night ;  but  at  length  the  offer 
w'as  declined,  and  the  disappointed  emissary  returned  to  his  tribe.^ 

Amidst  all  these  perils,  the  spirit  of  the  good  Father  remained 
untroubled,  because  it  reposed  quietly  in  the  bosom  of  God.  The  more 
he  suffered,  the  more  warmly  did  the  love  of  God  glow  in  his  heart. 
“  Often  was  he,  while  in  prayer,  detached  from  his  senses,  wrapped  in 
God,  and  ravished  with  the  charms  of  the  divine  beauty :  sometimes  his 
heart  was  transported  to  God  with  extatic  raptures  of  love.  But  above 
all,  he  cherished  a  tender  love  for  the  sacred  person  of  Jesus  Christ,  and 
especially  for  Jesus  suffering  on  the  Cross.  Often  he  felt  this  love,  like  a 
burning  fire,  which  having  inflamed  his  heart,  went  cfti  increasing  in 
intensity  each  day,  gradually  consuming  in  him  the  impurities  of  nature, 
in  order  to  cause  the  spirit  of  grace  and  the  adorable  spirit  of  Jesus  Christ 
to  reign  alone  in  his  soul.  At  the  feast  of  Pentecost,  in  the  year  1640, 
being  engaged  in  prayer  at  night,  in  presence  of  the  most  holy  Sacramentj 
he  beheld  himself  in  a  moment  invested,  as  it  were,  with  a  great  fire, 
which  burned  every  thing  around  him  without  consuming  any  thing;  and 
as  long  as  those  flames  continued,  he  felt  himself  interiorly  burning  with 
a  love  of  God  more  ardent  than  he  had  yet  experienced.”* 

Like  all  the  saints,  he  cherished-  a  most  tender  love  and  devotion  for 
the  immaculate  Mother  of  God  ;  and  he  ascribed  many  of  the  extraor¬ 
dinary  graces  he  received  to  her  potent  intercession.  The  vision  of  her 
heavenly  beauty  cheered  him  in  the  midst  of  tribulation,  and  shed  a  light 
on  his  path  amid  difficulties  and  trials ;  as  the  star  safely  guides  the 
mariner  at  night  among  the  stormy  billows.  His  ardent  love  for  Jesus 
suffering  was  naturally  blended  with  a  love  tor  His  mother,  who  stood  at 

1  Relation,  p.  78.  2  Ibid.  p.  68.  3  Ibid. 

2G2 


330 


EARLY  CATHOLIC  MISSIONS. 


the  foot  of  the  Cross,  and,  with  her  Son,  drank  the  bitter  chalice.  He 
likewise  held  daily  and  sweet  converse  with  the  saints  and  martyrs  of  the 
heavenly  court;  and,  while  he  was  charmed  with  their  virtues,  he  was 
strongly  stimulated  to  emulate  their  example,  and  was  powerfully  aided  by 
their  prayers;  which  “like  odors  from  golden  vials,”'  ascend  constantly 
before  the  throne  of  the  Lamb.  He  felt,  in  all  its  length  and  breadth,  and 
surpassing  beauty  and  sublimity,  the  sentiment  embodied  in  the  article  of 
the  Apostle’s  Creed  —  the  Communion  of  Saints.'* 

Though  thus  highly  favored  by  heaven,  he  was  as  humble  as  a  child, 
and  as  docile  as  a  lamb.  To  his  brethren  he  exhibited  a  rare  example  of 
perfect  obedience  to  the  rules  of  the  society,  and  to  the  will  of  his 
superiors.  He  had  no  will  of  his  own  ;  he  distrusted  his  own  lights  ;  he 
cheerfully  followed  the  direction  of  others.  In  1631,  he  wrote  as  follows : 

“  I  feel  that  I  have  no  talent  for  anything,  recognizing  in  myself  only 
an  inclination  to  obey  others.  I  believe  that  I  am  only  fit  to  be  a  porter, 
to  clean  out  the  rooms  of  my  brethren,  and  to  serve  in  the  kitchen.  I 
mean  to  conduct  myself  in  the  Society  as  if  I  were  a  beggar,  admitted  into 
the  Society,  by  sufferance,  and  I  will  receive  every  thing  that  is  granted 
me,  as  a  particular  favor.”^ 

This  was  written,  it  will  be  remembered,  after  he  had  returned  to  France 
the  first  time,  and  before  his  second  mission  to  the  Hurons.  So  great  was 
his  humility,  that  on  entering  the  Society,  he  petitioned  to  be  admitted  as 
a  mere  lay  brother  : 

“  And  again  before  he  made  his  vows,  he  renewed  the  request,  thinking 
himself  unworthy  of  the  priesthood,  and  fit  only  for  the  most  menial 
offices  .  .  .  Yet  was  he  capable  of  the  greatest  things.  And  when  he 
was  made  superior  of  the  Huron  mission,  and  had  many  others  under  his 
charge,  every  one  admired  his  skill  in  the  management  of  affairs,  his 
sweetness  which  gained  all  hearts,  his  heroic  courage  in  every  undertak¬ 
ing,  his  long  suffering  in  awaiting  the  moments  of  God’s  good  pleasure, 
his  patience  in  enduring  every  thing,  and  his  zeal  in  undertaking  what¬ 
soever  might  promote  God’s  glory.  His  humility  inclined  him  to  embrace 
with  love,  with  joy,  and  even  with  natural  relish,  whatever  was  most  lowly 
and  painful :  if  on  a  journey,  he  carried  the  heaviest  burdens  ;  if  traveling 
in  canoes,  he  rowed  from  morning  till  night ;  it  was  he  who  threw  liimself 
first  into  the  water,  and  was  the  last  to  leave  it,  notwithstanding  the  rigor 
of  the  cold  and  the  ice ;  his  naked  limbs  were  all  red  with  the  cold,  and 
his  whole  body  was  transpierced  with  it.  He  was  the  first  up  in  the 
morning  to  make  a  fire  and  prepare  breakfast,  and  he  was  the  last  to  retire, 
finishing  his  prayers  and' devotions  after  the  others  had  gone  to  repose.” 

“  However  harassed  he  might  be,  what  fatigue  soever  he  might  have 
endured,  over  roads  that  would  fill  the  stoutest  hearts  with  horror,  and 
cause  them  to  lose  courage  ;  after  all  the  labors  of  the  day,  and  sometimes 
of  thirty  days  in  succession,  without  repose,  without  refieshment,  without 
relaxation  of  any  kind,  often  even  not  liaving  been  able  during  the  whole 
time  to  make  one  meal  at  his  leisure  ;  he  yet  found  time  to  acquit  liimself 
of  all  the  duties  demanded  by  tlie  rules,  .  .  .  however  protracted  had  been 
his  ordinary  devotions,  or  however  liarassing  Ids  ceaseless  occupations. 
He  sometimes  said,  ‘  that  God  liad  given  us  the  day  to  toil  for  the 
neighbor,  and  the  night  to  converse  with  Himself.’  And  what  is  most 


1  Apocalypse  v.  8. 


2  Relation,  p.  70-1. 


8  Ibid.  p.  78. 


FATHERS  DE  BREBEUF  AND  LALLEMANT.  331 


remarkable  is,  that  in  all  the  labors  he  thus  took  upon  himself,  he  did 
every  thing  so  quietly  and  so  dexterously,  that  one  would  have  believed 
that  he  but  acted  in  accordance  with  his  natural  inclination.  ‘  I  am  but 
an  ox,’  he  was  wont  to  say,  alluding  to  the  meaning  of  his  name  in 
French,  ‘  I  am  fit  for  nothing  but  carrying  burdens,’  ”  ‘ 

*‘To  the  continual  sufferings  which  were  inseparable  from  his  employment 
in  the  missions,  and  in  his  frequent  journeying  through  the  snow :  and  to 
those  labors  which  charity  caused  him  to  embrace,  often  above  his  strength, 
but  never  above  his  courage;  he  added  a  number  of  voluntary  mortifications 
—  of  inflictions  of  the  discipline  every  day,  and  often  twice  in  the  day,  of 
frequent  fasts,  of  hair  shirts,  of  girdles  around  his  body  armed  with  iron 
points,  of  watchings  which  wei-e  protracted  far  into  the  night.  And  after 
all,  his  heart  was  not  yet  satiated  with  sufferings,  and  he  believed  that 
what  he  had  hitherto  endured  was  as  nothinaf.^ 

“  His  meekness  was  the  virtue  which  seemed  to  transcend  all  the  others: 
it  was  proof  against  every  trial.  For  twelve  years  that  I  have  known  him,” 
writes  Father  Raguenau,  “  that  I  have  seen  him  alternately  superior, 
inferior,  and  on  an  equality  with  others  ;  sometimes  engaged  in  temporal 
affairs,  sometimes  in  missionary  toils  and  labors  ;  dealing  with  the  savages, 
whether  Christians,  infidels,  or  enemies;  in  the  midst  of  sufferings,  of 
persecution,  and  of  calumny :  I  never  once  saw  him  either  in  anger,  or 
even  manifesting  the  slightest  indication  of  displeasure.  Occasionally  even, 
some  persons  tried  to  pique  him  on  purpose,  and  to  surprise  him  in  those 
things  to  which  they  thought  his  sensibility  would  be  the  most  alive  ;  but 
always  his  eye  would  be  benign,  his  words  full  of  sweetness,  and  his  heart 
in  an  unalterable  calm.^ 

“  His  generous  courage  was  inspired  by  his  distrust  of  his  own  strength 
on  the  one  hand,  and  his  unshaken  confidence  in  God,  on  the  other.  He 
sought  in  all  things  to  be  entirely  in  conformity  with  the  holy  will  of  God. 
Having  been  one  day  asked,  ‘  whether,  if  taken  by  the  Iroquois,  he  would 
not  feel  a  great  repugnance  to  be  stripped  naked  ?’  ‘  No,’  he  replied,  ‘for 

this  would  be  the  will  of  God,  and  I  would  not  think  of  myself,  but  only 
of  Him.’  On  being  asked,  ‘  whether  he  would  not  have  a  lively  horror  of 
beifig  burnt  alive  ?’  ‘  I  would  dread  it,’  he  replied,  ‘  were  I  to  look  only 

to  mv  own  weakness;  for  the  sting  of  a  fly  would,  in  this  case,  cause  me 
to  be  impatient ;  but  I  trust  that  God  will  assist  me  at  all  times,  and  aided 
by  His  gi-ace,  I  fear  not  the  most  frightful  torments  of  the  fire,  more  than 
I  would  the  sting  of  a  fly.’'* 

“His  death  crowned  his  life,  and  his  perseverance  was  the  seal  of  his 
sanctity.  He  died  at  the  age  of  56  years.  He  was  born  on  the  25th  of 
MarclC  the  feast  of  the  Annunciation  of  Our  Lady,  of  respectable  parents, 
in  the  Diocese  of  Bayeux.  He  entered  into  our  Society  in  the  year  1617, 

on  the  5th  day  of  October . His  martyrdom  was  accomplished  on 

the  16th  day  of  March,  1649.”® 

Such  is  an  imperfect  outline  of  the  life,  virtues,  and  glorious  death  of 
that  most  extraordinary  man, — John  do  Brebeuf.  He  died  just  one 
hundred  and  thirty-two  years  after  the  commencement  of  the  reformation, 
so  called.  It  is  more  than  doubtful,  whether,  during  all  this  time,  the 
Protestant  churches  had  produced,  or  whether  they  have  ever  since  pro¬ 
duced,  one  such  man  as  he  was.  And  yet  great  and  extraordinary  as  he 
certainly  was,  he  was  still  but  one  of  a  mighty  band  of  Catholic  heroes. 
Imbued  with  a  similar  spirit,  and  willing,  all  of  them,  to  die  for  Christ ! 

1  Relation,  p.  74,  75.  2  Ibid  p.  76.  3  Ibid.  p.  77-8.  4  Ibid  p.  81-2.  5  Ibid.  p.  85-6. 


332 


EARLY  CATHOLIC  MISSIONS. 


Wlien  he  first  visited  the  Huron  tribes,  in  1626,  there  was  not  found, 
in  all  tnat  unexplored  and  snow-clad  wilderness,  one  savage  who  invoked 
the  name  of  the  true  God.  At  his  death,  he  beheld  gathered  around  him, 
as  an  encircling  crown,  no  less  than  seven  thousand  children  of  the 
forest,  wiiom  he  and  his  brethren  had  baptized.'  He  thus  beheld  the  Cross 
of  Jesus,  which  he  so  dearly  loved,  unfurled  as  a  banner  of  triumph,  in  a 
place  where,  since  the  creation  of  the  world,  no  true  worshiper  of  God  had 
been  found!  The  impure  superstitions  of  paganism  had  melted  away 
before  the  light  of  his  preaching,  as  the  mists  before  the  rising  sun.  The 
Christian  villages  of  the  Hurons  were  made  to  vie  with  those  established 
by  Catholic  missionaries  on  the  sunny  plains  of  Paraguay. 

He  was,  in  the  hands  of  God,  the  main  instrument  for  effecting  all  this 
incalculable  good.  His  prayers  were  heard,  his  watchings  and  sufferings 
were  blessed;  the  Hurons  were  converted  and  reclaimed  from  barbarism. 
His  glorious  death  crowned  all  his  previous  labors.  He  died  at  his  post, 
like  a  faithful  soldier,  and  in  the  manner  for  which  he  had  so  long  sighed 
and  so  ardently  pi-ayed,  day  and  night,  for  years!  He  richly  merits  the 
title  which  his  brethren  and  cotemporaries  gave  him  :  the  Apostle  of  the 
Hurons. 

1  Ibid.  p.  58. 


XVIII.  WEBSTER’S  BUNKER  HILL  SPEECH  * 


RELATIVE  TREATMENT  OF  THE  AMERICAN  ABORIGINES  BY  THE  ENGLISH 

AND  SPANISH  COLONISTS. 


Mr.  Webster  aa  an  orator— Compared  with  Preston,  Calhoun,  and  Clay — Mr.  Webster’s  omissions — His 
drift — A  sound  principle — But  iuconclusive  reasoning — Different  policy  adopted  by  JKnglish  and 
Spanish  colonists — “The  Anglo  Saxon  blood'’ — A  parallel  case — Cause  of  aversion  to  Spain — The 
reformation  of  Luther— Its  influence  on  liberty — “  The  middle  class” — Luther  and  the  peasants — 
Protestant  opinions — Religious  element  in  Spanish  colonization — Irving’s  testimony — Portuguese 
colonists — Catholic  and  Protestant  navigators — Who  introduced  slavery? — Alleged  cruelties  of  the 
Spaniards — Las  Casas — Cruelties  practised  by  the  Puritans — Their  treatment  of  the  Aborigines — The 
Pokanokets — Shrewd  bargaining— King  Philip— The  Narragan setts — Their  extermination — The 
Pequods — “  The  godly  Stone” — A  horribleconttagration-Settling  accounts — “A  dark  shade  on  the 
soil  of  Massachusetts.” 

Mr.  Webster’s  Bunker  Hill  speech  is  emphatically  a  great  oration.  It 
bears  the  impress  of  his  mighty  mind,  even  in  what  we  must  consider  the 
meagre  and  imperfect  report  of  it  in  the  newspapers.  It  contains  passages 
worthy  of  the  palmiest  days  of  the  great  American  orator.  What,  for 
instance,  could  excel,  in  simplicity,  beauty,  and  strength,  his  character  of 
Washington  ?  Or  what  could  surpass,  in  stirring  interest,  his  appeal  to 
the  moral  feelings  of  his  countrymen,  in  the  peroration  ? 

Yet,  notwithstanding  our  admiration  of  Mr.  Webster’s  talents,  we  do 
not  precisely  place  him  at  the  head  of  the  list  of  American  orators.  He 
wants  the  pathos  of  Preston,  the  electric  rapidity  of  Calhoun,  and  the 
versatile  graces  and  manifold  excellencies  of  Clay.  But  in  massive 
volume  of  thought,  in  depth  and  closeness  of  reasoning,  and  in  the 
eloquence  of  the  head,  he  is  scarcely  equaled,  certainly  not  surpassed,  by 
any.  This  is  his  forte,  and  it  manifests  itself  on  all  occasions,  whether  he 
is  called  on  to  defend  the  Union  and  the  constitution,  or  to  vindicate  his 
own  state  of  Massachusetts.  With  him  the  flowers  of  rhetoric  and  appeals 
to  feeling  are  but  secondary  things ;  he  uses  them  with  considerable  effect, 
when  they  come  in  his  way,  but  he  would  not  move  one  step  from  his 
path,  to  cull  all  the  flowers  of  a  whole  parterre. 

These  remarks  are  intended  to  apply  at  least  as  much  to  the  manner,  as 
to  the  matter  of  his  Bunker  Hill  speech.  This  contains  much  that  we 
admire,  but  much  also  to  which  a  love  of  truth  compels  us  to  object.  On 
the  occasion  of  inaugurating  a  monument  commemorative  of  a  struggle 
which  led  to  a  nation’s  freedom,  we  could  have  wished  to  see  greater 

*Mr.  Webster’s  Bunker  Hill  Speech,  delivered  at  the  Bunker  Hill  Monument,  June 
17,  1843,  and  published  in  the  Boston  Courier.  ggy 


334 


Webster’s  bunker  hill  speech. 


enlargement  of  views,  in  the  orator  selected  to  give  expression  to  the  feel¬ 
ings  of  the  day.  We  would  have  looked  fora  loftier  tone  of  moral  feeling, 
as  well  for  less  sweeping  and  more  accurate  statements  of  facts.  Why 
give  so  undue  a  prominence  to  the  “Pilgrim  Fathers,”  and  their  immediate 
Puritan  descendants,  who,  if  there  be  any  truth  in  history,  were  any  thing 
but  the  friends  of,  at  least,  religious  liberty  ?  Why  hold  up  this  narrow 
minded  and  exclusive  people,  of  blue-law  and  witch-hanging  memory,  as 
very  paragons  of  perfection  for  a  nation  of  enlightened  freemen  ?  Why 
not  at  least  temper  their  eulogy  with  some  qualifying  remarks?  Why,  in 
speaking  of  the  origin  and  characteristics  of  our  free  institutions,  pass  over 
in  utter  silence  William  Penn  and  Lord  Baltimore,  who,  in  Pennsylvania 
and  Maryland,  did  at  least  as  much  for  civil  liberty  as  the  pilgrims,  and 
much  more  than  they  for  religious  liberty.  The  only  reason  we  can  assign 
for  this  partial  view  of  the  subject,  is  the  fact,  that  the  orator  was  himself 
a  son  of  the  pilgrims,  and  that  both  he  and  his  audience  partook  a  little, — 
just  a  little, —  of  the  selfish  narrow-mindedness  of  their  ancestors.  His 
object  was  to  please  his  hearers,  and  he  knew  well  that  the  high  road  to 
their  aflections  was  the  beaten  track  which  led  to  Plymouth  rock, —  “the 
Blarney  Stone  of  New  England  !” 

We  do  not  purpose  to  examine  all  the  statements  of  Mr.  Webster’s 
speech.  This  would  lead  us  too  far,  besides  causing  us,  perhaps,  to  trench 
upon  what  is  not  our  special  province.  Hence  we  shall  confine  our  lemarks 
to  one  view  of  the  subject,  to  which  Mr.  Webster  attaches  great,  and,  we 
believe,  undue  importance  ;  we  mean  his  elaborate  comparison  between 
the  causes,  characters,  and  results  of  English  and  Spanish  colonization  in 
America.  This  hack  had  been  already  ridden,  almost  to  death,  by  school 
boy  declaimers  and  Fourth  of  July  orators ;  but  the  orator  of  New  England 
mounts  it  anew ;  and,  as  if  conscious  of  the  distinguished  honor  conferred 
on  it  by  its  new  rider,  the  jaded  beast  awakens  to  new  life,  and  performs 
such  gambols,  that  an  unpractised  observer  would  almost  mistake  it  for  a 
full  blooded  Arabian. 

The  great  principle  upon  which  the  oiator  bases  his  comparison,  is,  we 
think,  entirely  correct.  Though  true,  we  do  not  however  believe  tliat  it  is 
new.  Count  De  Maistre,  and  others,  had  made  the  same  remark  before, 
though  in  different  words.  After  having  spoken  at  some  length  on  the  history 
of  the  monument,  and  of  the  particular  CA  cnt  it  was  desigsed  to  commemo¬ 
rate,  the  orator  asks  :  “  What  then  is  the  true  and  peculiar  principle  of  the 
American  revolution,  and  of  the  system  of  government  which  it  has 
confirmed  and  established  ?”  He  answers:  “Now  the  truth  is,  that  the 
American  revolution  was  not  caused  by  the  instantaneous  discovery  of  prin¬ 
ciples  of  government  before  unheard  of,  or  the  piactical  adoption  of  political 
ideas,  such  as  had  never  before  entered  into  the  minds  of  men.  It  was 
but  the  full  development  of  principles  of  government,  forms  of  society, 
and  political  sentiments,  the  origin  of  all  which  lay  back  two  centuries  in 
English  and  American  history.”  And  farther  on,  he  accounts  for  the 
absence  of  liberty  in  the  early  Spanish  colonies  of  America  on  the  same 


ENGLISH  AND  SPANISH  COLONISTS. 


335 


principle:  *‘As  there  was  no  liberty  in  Spain,  how  could  liberty  be 
transmitted  to  the  Spanish  colonies  ?  ’’ 

However  we  might  differ  from  him  in  its  application,  we  admit  the  truth 
of  the  principle  itself,  in  all  its  extent.  It  is  consonant  both  with  right 
reason,  and  v/ith  the  general  experience  of  mankind.  The  principle 
embodied  in  the  old  Latin  adage  —  nemo  repente  fit  summus  —  no  one 
reaches  an  extreme  suddenly  —  is  specially  applicable  to  political  institu¬ 
tions.  All  changes  calculated  beneficially  to  affect  whole  masses  of 
population,  must  be  the  work  of  time,  as  well  as  fully  adapted  to  the 
condition  and  wants  of  the  people  thus  affected.  All  government  is 
essentially  relative  to  the  character  and  exigencies  of  the  people  to  be 
governed.  And  that  government  may  be  pronounced  the  best,  which, 
in  reference  to  those  exigencies,  secures  life,  property,  and  character,  with 
the  least  possible  sacrifice  of  individual  liberty.  And  our  warm  admira¬ 
tion  of  republican  government,  as  the  best  in  theory,  and  in  practice^  when 
the  people  can  bear  it,  should  not  lead  us  into  the  vulgar  absurdity  of 
supposing  and  asserting  that  it  is  the  best  for  all,  and  under  all  circum¬ 
stances.  The  character  and  temperament  of  some  people  cannot  pass 
through  the  ordeal  of  self-government.  The  French  tried  it,  and  failed. 
And  in  general,  it  may  be  asserted,  that,  with  some  exceptions  which 
history  affords,  a  radical  democracy  is  little  suited  to  the  warm  tempera¬ 
ment  of  the  South,  and  that  it  requires  for  its  maintainance  somewhat  of 
the  coolness  of  northern  heads. 

With  these  general  remarks,  to  explain  the  practical  operation  of  the 
great  principle  above  laid  down,  we  may  easily  understand  why  it  is,  that 
our  sister  republics  in  the  South  have  not  yet  fully  succeeded  in  the  attempt 
at  self-government.  We  cannot  yet  pronounce  with  safety  that  they  have 
failed  ;  much  less  that  they  cannot  succeed.  As  the  ex-secretary 
expresses  it ;  “they  are  yet  on  their  trial,  and  I  hope  for  a  favorable 
result.”  But  if  they  do  fail,  it  will  be  solely  because  their  transition 
from  a  kingly  to  a  republican  government  was  too  sudden  and  too  violent,  — 
and  that  the  change  was  not  perhaps  adapted  to  their  character  and  pre¬ 
vious  habits.  In  the  North  American  colonies  almost  all  the  elements  of 
democracy,  “  home  governments,  equality  of  rights,  representative  sys¬ 
tems,”  were  in  full  and  almost  unchecked  operation  for  many  years  before 
the  declaration  of  independence  ;  whereas,  in  Spanish  America,  but  few 
of  these  elements  were  in  existence  at  all,  or  developed  to  any  extent, 
before  her  colonies  threw  off  the  yoke  of  the  mother  country. 

But  there  is  another  most  important  consideration,  bearing  directly  on 
this  subject,  of  which  the  Bunker  Hill  orator  seems  to  have  lost  sight 
altogether ;  and  without  which  it  is  impossible  to  understand  fully  the 
reason  of  the  great  political  difference  between  English  and  Spanish 
America.  He  makes  it  a  matter  of  boast  that  in  all  the  vast  region  of 
Spanish  America,  there  are  but  between  one  and  two  millions  of  European 
color  and  European  blood  ;  while  in  the  United  States  there  are,  he  says, 
fourteen  millions,  who  rejoice  in  their  descent  from  the  people  of  the  more 


836 


Webster’s  bunker  hill  speech. 


northern  part  of  Europe.’  We  scarcely  know  from  what  source  he 
derived  his  information  in  regard  to  the  number  of  descendants  from 
Europeans  in  the  Republics  of  the  South.  Unless  our  statistics  greatly 
mislead  us,  there  is  about  the  number  he  mentions  in  Mexico  alone.  But 
let  this  pass.  There  are  about  twenty  millions  of  people  in  Spanish 
America.^  Deducting  from  this  number,  say  two  millions  of  whites, 
there  remain  eighteen  millions  of  other  races,  some  of  them  mixed,  but  by 
far  the  greater  number  pure  descendants  of  the  aborigines.  Could  it  have 
been  reasonably  expected,  that  such  vast  masses  of  population,  so  lately 
reclaimed  from  barbarism, — some  of  them  from  cannibalism,  —  should 
have  become  so  soon  capable  of  the  delicate  business  of  self-government  ? 
And  this,  too,  when  nations  the  most  refined  had  tried  the  experiment  and 
failed  ? 

Let  us  put  a  parallel  case.  Suppose, —  it  can  be  unhappily  but  a 
supposition, —  suppose  the  good  Puritans  and  the  other  American  colo¬ 
nists,  instead  of  exterminating  the  poor  Indians,  had  humanely  settled 
down  amongst  them  as  the  hlood  thirsty  Spaniards  did ;  had  patiently 
toiled  to  convert  them  to  Christianity,  and  thus  to  reclaim  them  to 
civilization  ;  had  intermarried  with  them  and  become  one  people  with 
them,  like  the  Spaniards  ;  and  that,  instead  of  being  able  to  vaunt  with 
Mr.  Webster  “their  English  civilization,  their  English  law,  and  what  is 
more  than  ally  their  Anglo-Saxon  blood,*’  the  people  of  our  colonies  had 
been,  nine-tenths  of  them,  the  mere  descendants  of  these  same  aborigines  ; 
would  they,  think  you,  under  these  circumstances,  have  ever  declared 
their  independence,  or  had  they  declared  it,  would  they  have  been  able  to 
make  it  good  ?  And  to  make  the  case  entirely  parallel  ;  suppose.,  that 
the  Spaniards,  after  having  exterminated  the  Indians  of  South  America, 
should  have  declared^ and  made  good  their  own  independence  ;  and  that, 
while  striving  to  imitate  their  noble  example,  we  were  prevented  from 
meeting  with  full  success  by  the  drawback  upon  our  energies  arising  from 
our  vast  semi-civilized  Indian  population,  and  that,  in  the  midst  of  our 
difficulties,  our  Spanish  neighbors  should  taunt  us  with  our  want  of 
success,  and  boast  their  superior  numbers  of  “pure  Castilian  blood,”  — 
would  we  not  think  their  jeers  a  refinement  on  cruelty  ?  Would  we  not 
retort,  by  asking  them,  what  had  become  of  the  millions  of  God’s 
creatures,  whom  their  heartless  policy  or  cruelty  had  immolated  ?  If  we 
taunt  them  with  their  cruelty  to  the  Indians  now,  what  would  we  do 
then  ?  Would  we  not  boast  of  our  superior  humanity,  and  put  this  in,  as 
a  mitigating  plea,  for  our  want  of  success  in  self-government? 

Alas  !  even  as  the  case  stands  now,  with  the  spectres  of  hundreds  and 
thousands  of  poor  exterminated  Indians  rising  up  from  their  graves,  and, 
like  the  ghost  which  appeared  to  Macbeth,  staring  Mr.  Webster  full  in 
the  face,  he  could,  without  a  blush,  boast  of  the  superior  refinement  and 

1  These  and  the  following  statistics  refer  to  the  year  1843  ;  there  are  at  least  twenty  millions  at 
present. 

2  This  estimate  does  not  include  Brazil,  which  is  Portuguese,  and  which  contains  about  seren 
millions  of  people. 


ENGLISH  AND  SPANISH  COLONISTS.  337 


greater  purity  of  blood  of  himself  and  hearers,  and  taunt  the  Spaniards 
with  their  inhumanity  !  “Do  unto  others  as  you  would  wish  them  to  do 
unto  you,” —  is  an  old  maxim,  as  sound  in  political  economy,  as  it  is  in 
morals;  and  if  the  orator  of  Bunker  Hill  had  given  over  his  boasting,  and 
attended  a  little  more  closely  to  this  divine  injunction,  he  would  have 
acted  more  wisely  as  well  as  more  justly.  Was  it  fair  in  him,  while 
instituting  a  comparison  between  North  and  South  America,  wholly  to 
conceal  a  notorious  fact,  so  honorable  to  the  Spaniards,  and  so  essential  to 
enable  his  hearers  -to  understand  the  true  cause  of  their  present  political 
condition? 

But  there  is  secret  cause  of  deep  aversion  to  Spain,  and  to  everything 
Spanish.  The  Spaniards  are  Catholics,  and  their  colonies  are  entirely 
Catholic.  And  none  shared  this  feeling  of  hostility  to  Catholics  more 
deeply,  than  those  who  were  assembled  around  Bunker  Hill  monument 
on  occasion  of  Mr.  Webster’s  great  speech.  The  orator  was  well  aware 
of  this  state  of  feeling,  and  he  knew  that  nothing  would  cater  to  it  better, 
than  praise  of  the  pilgrims  at  the  expense  of  Spanish  colonists.  We  will, 
however,  do  him  the  justice  to  say,  that  he  does  not  openly  pander  to  this 
prejudice,  he  does  not  give  in  to  the  silly  and  hackneyed  school-boy 
declamation,  about  the  Mexicans  and  South  Americans  being  unfitted  for 
liberty,  because  of  their  being  priest-ridden ;  but  covertly,  he  more  than 
intimates  this,  unless  we  have  greatly  misapprehended  the  tenor  of  his 
remarks.  True,  he  asserts,  “  that  making  all  allowance  for  situation  and** 
climate,  it  cannot  be  doubted  by  intelligent  minds,  that  the  difference  now 
existing  between  North  and  South  America  is  justly  attributable,  in  a 
great  degree,  to  political  institutions.”  Had  he  said  wholly,  or  at  least 
adverted  to  the  other  great  reason  of  difference  just  stated,  he  would  have 
been  nearer  the  truth.  He  ascribes  the  superiority  of  the  race  which 
peopled  North  America  mainly  to  “  the  reformation  of  Luther,  which 
broke  out,  kindling  up  the  minds  of  men  afresh,  leading  to  new  liberty 
of  thought,  and  awaking  in  individuals  energies  before  unknown,  even  to 
themselves,’’  And  he  adds,  that,  “the  controversies  of  this  period 
changed  society  as  well  as  religion.”  The  poor  Spaniards,  who  had  not 
been  blessed  with  this  new  northern  light,  were  unfit  for  self-government ; 
they  continued  “  in  the  sleep  of  a  thousand  years,  in  the  bosom  of  the 
dark  aires.”  while  their  more  fortunate  English  brethren  had  shaken  off 
their  slumbers,  and  had  already  awakened  to  visions  of  liberty  !  Well, 
this  is  all  common-place  enough,  even  for  the  veriest  driveler.  One  of  our 
fine  college  bred  youths  could  have  said  as  much,  with  as  much  truth,  and 
with  infinitely  more  propriety,  than  one  of  our  greatest  orators  and  most 
enlightened  statesmen. 

If  the  reformation  of  Luther  prepared  men  for  freedom,  how  happened 
it,  that,  in  all  those  countries  where  that  reformation  obtained  the  ascen¬ 
dency,  an  absolute  despotism  was  established  on  the  ruins  of  whatever 
institutions  of  human  liberty  had  sprung  up  in  the  “  dark  ages?”  Whoever 

will  read  Hallam’s  History  of  the  Middle  Ages  cannot  but  become  aware 
2  H  25 


838 


Webster’s  bunker  hill  speech. 


of  the  fact,  that,  during  that  greatly  misunderstood  period,  Germany  enjoyed 
much  more  liberty  than  since  the  boasted  reformation.  What  has  become 
of  the  Free  Cities  of  Germany,  of  the  representative  system,  and ’of  the 
exemption  from  taxation  without  the  consent  of  the  governed,  all  leading 
features  in  German  mediaeval  jurisprudence?  Alas!  they  have  all  been 
swept  away  bythe  “  reformation  of  Luther,”  or  buried  under  the  rubbish 
of  the  ruins,  which  that  “  enkindling”  event  left  behind!  And  what  new 
institutions  have  replaced  those  once  cherished  principles  of  liberty?  Abso¬ 
lute  despotism,  with  union  of  church  and  state  and  immense  standing  armies, 
now  constitute  the  last  appeal  of  law  in  Protestant  Germany.  Prussia, 
Sweden,  Denmark,  Holland,  and  little  Hanover, have  all  drunk  to  the  dregs 
of  this  better  cup  of  tyranny,  put  to  their  lips  by  those  to  whom  the 
rhetorical  flourishes  of  modern  orators  would  fain  point,  as  the  apostles  of 
liberty  !  Facts  are  stronger  evidence  than  declamation,  no  matter  how 
exalted  the  declaimer. 

But  was  not  at  least  England  made  free  by  the  reformation  ?  It  is  a 
fact,  which  Mr.  Webster  cannot  deny,  that  for  nearly  one  hundred  and 
fifty  years  after  the  reformation,  the  regal  prerogative  in  England  swal¬ 
lowed  up  almost  every  other  element  of  the  government.  There  was 
scarcely  a  provision  of  Magna  Charta,  which  the  sovereigns  of  England, 
from  Henry  VIII.  down  to  the  revolution  in  1688, —  the  brief  period  of 
the  Commonwealth  and  of  the  Protectorate  perhaps  excepted, —  did  not 
«!itjample  under  foot  with  impunity.  The  statute-book  of  England'  fully 
warrants  this  assertion.  And  the  great  Magna  Charta  of  British  freedom, 
—  whence  did  it  spring?  Was  it  of  Protestant  origin?  No.  It  was  fully 
established  at  least  three  hundred  years  before  the  reformation  was  thought 
of.  .  It  was  wholly  and  exclusively  Catholic.  The  colonists  of  North 
America  were  certainly  infinitely  more  indebted  for  their  liberties  to  Car¬ 
dinal  Langton  and  the  Catholic  barons  and  yeomanry  of  Runnymede,  than 
to  the  reformation  of  Luther.  The  restoration  of  British  liberties  after 
Ihe  revolution  in  1688,  was  but  a  return  to  the  great  principles  embodied 
in  the  Catholic  Magna  Charta  \  —  an  instrument,  which,  as  the  parliamen¬ 
tary  records  of  England  will  show,  had  been  revived  and  extended  at  least 
thirty  times  before  the  reformation.  All  these  facts  might  not  have  been 
palatable  to  Mr.  Webster’s  audience  ;  yet  truth  required  that  they  should 
-not  have  been  entirely  suppressed.  At  least  truth  forbade  assertions  and 
statements  contrary  to,  and  clearly  contradicted  by  them. 

The  New  England  orator  speaks  of  a  great  “  middle  class  which  were 
neither  barons  nor  mere  agricultural  laborers  ;  ”  and  to  this  middle  class 
he  ascribes  great  influence  in  preparing  the  popular  mind  for  self-govern¬ 
ment.  We  acknowledge  the  truth  and  appropriateness  of  this  remark. 
But  did  the  reformation  of  Luther  do  any  thing  towards  raising  up  this 
class  ?  We  tliink  not.  Instead  of  raising  up  the  lower  classes,  it  con¬ 
tributed  greatly  to  depress  them.  Luther  took  part  with  the  sovereigns 
of  Germany,  when  tlie  peasants  rose  up  in  rebellion  to  assert  what  they 
believed  to  be  their  rights.  He  said  that  “peasants  should  be  treated  like 


ENGLISH  AND  SPANISH  COLONISTS. 


839 


asses,  —  if  they  shake  their  heads,  give  them  the  stick,  —  if  they  kick,  shocA 
themy  Such  was  the  characteristic  language  of  this  boasted  apostle  of 
liberty!  The  truth  is,  that  the  Catholic  Church  of  the  dark  ages  did 
infinitely  more  to  raise  up  the  lower  orders,  and  thereby  to  build  up  the 
middle  class,  than  any  other  agency.  By  abolishing  the  serf-system,  and 
protecting  the  people  against  the  tyrants,  who  oppressed  them  during  that 
period  of  anarchy,  she  rendered  a  lasting  service  to  humanity,  and  laid 
the  foundation  of  civil  liberty.  Such  Protestant  writers  as  Guizot,  Hallam, 
Bancroft,  Voigt,  and  Hurter’  have  freely  acknowledged  that  fact.  Pope 
Alexander  III.  A.  D.  1167,  “  true  to  the  spirit  of  his  office,  which  during 
the  supremacy  of  brute  force  in  the  middle  age,  made  of  the  chief  minister 
of  religion  the  tribune  of  the  people,  and  the  guardian  of  the  oppressed, 
had  written,  ‘  that  nature  having  made  no  slaves,  all  men  have  an 

EQUAL  RIGHT  TO  LIBERTY.’  ”  ^ 

After  having  duly  eulogized  the  purity  of  purpose,  the  disinterested 
benevolence,  and  the  love  of  liberty  displayed  by  the  pilgrim  fathers,  the 
orator  of  Bunker  Hill  proceeds  to  point  out  the  chief  differences  between 
them  and  the  colonists  of  Spanish  America.  The  Puritans,  forsooth, 
did  not  seek  after  gold — not  they ;  but  “  the  mines  of  gold  and  silver 
were  the  excitements  to  Spanish  efforts  ;  ”  “  the  colonists  of  English 
America  were  of  the  people,  and  a  people  already  free  “  the  conquerors 
and  European  settlers  of  Spanish  America  were  mainly  military  com¬ 
manders  and  common  soldiers:”  the  former  were  “industrious  indi¬ 
viduals,  making  their  own  way  in  the  wilderness,  defending  themselves 
against  the  savages,  recognizing  their  right  to  the  soil,  and  with  a  generally 
honest  purpose  of  introducing  knowledge  as  well  as  Christianity  among 
them  “Spain,”  with  her  colonists,  “swooped  on  South  America,  like 
a  falcon  on  its  prey.  Everything  was  gone.  Territories  were  acquired 
by  fire  and  sword.  Cities  were  destroyed  by  fire  and  sword.  Hundreds 
and  thousands  of  human  beings  fell  by  fire  and  sword.  Even  conversion 
of  Christianity  was  attempted  by  fire  and  sword.”  Finally,  the  pilgrims 
brought  with  them  liberty  and  free  trade  ;  with  the  Spanish  colonists, 
“  the  government,  as  well  as  the  commerce,  was  a  strict  home  monopoly.” 

Such  are  the  principal  points  of  difference  between  the  two  systems  of 
colonization,  as  assigned  by  our  orator.  There  is  some  truth,  with  not  a 
little  exaggeration,  inaccuracy,  unfairness,  in  his  parallel.  He  is  not 
accurate,  when  he  says,  that  the  North  American  colonists  “recognized 
the  right  of  tlie  Indians  to  the  soil:”  at  least  the  pious  pilgrims  seized 
on  the  whole  territory  of  the  Pequods,  embracing  the  present  State  of 
Connecticut,  without  any  equivalent.*  It  is  not  correct,  that  the  Spanish 

1  Since  become  a  convert,  to  Catholicity. 

2  Biincroft,  vol  1.  p.  163.  He  gives  a  free  translation  of  the  PontiflTs  language,  taken  from  his 
’otter  to  Lupus,  king  of  Valentia.  This  Pope  of  the  dark  ages  employs  almost  the  identical  words 
of  our  declaration  of  Independence  :  “  But  since  nature  has  created  all  men  free,  no  one  was,  by  the 
condition  of  nature,  subject  to  servitude;”  Cum  autem  omnes  liberos  natura  creasset,  nullus 
condiiione  naturae  fuit  subilitus  servituti.”  Hist.  Anglic.  Script,  vol  1,  p.  580. — quoted  by  Bancroft. 

3  Bancroft,  vol.  ii.  p.  98.  See  also  vol.  iii,  p.  408,  where  he  says,  that  in  Massachusetts  the  first 
planters  assumed  to  themselves  a  right  to  treat  the  Indians  on  the  foot  of  Canaanitesand  Amalecitos.” 


340  WEBS  Tim ’s'  BUNKER  HILL  SPEECH. 

Government  sanctioned  the  bad  treatment  of  the  Indians  by  some  of  ita 
unworthy  agents,  or  that  “  conversion  to  Christianity  was  attempted  by  fire 
and  sword.”  We  will  have  occasion  to  show  more  fully  the  inaccuracy  of 
this  statement  a  little  later ;  ‘  but  we  will  here  insert,  for  the  edification  of 
the  ex-secretary,  the  testimony  of  Washington  Irving,  who  has  investigated 
Spanish  History  as  thoroughly,  perhaps,  as  any  other  man  in  our  country: 

“The  laws  and  regulations  (of  Spain)  for  the  government  of  the  newly 
discovered  countries,  and  the  decision  of  the  Council  of  the  Indians  on  all 
contested  points,  though  tinctured  in  some  degree  with  the  bigotry  of  the 
age,  were  distinguished  for  wisdom,  justice  and  humanity,  and  do  honor 
to  the  Spanish  nation.  It  was  only  in  the  abuse  of  them  by  individuals, 
to  whom  the  execution  of  the  laws  was  entrusted,  that  these  atrocities 
were  committed.  It  should  be  remembered,  also,  that  the  same  nation 
which  gave  birth  to  the  sanguinary  and  rapacious  adventurers,  who 
perpetrated  these  cruelties,  gave  birth  likewise  to  the  early  missionaries, 
like  Las  Casas,  who  followed  the  sanguinary  course  of  discovery,  binding 
up  the  wounds  inflicted  by  their  countrymen ;  men  who,  in  a  truly  evan¬ 
gelical  spirit,  braved  all  kinds  of  perils  and  hardships,  and  even  death 
itself,  not  through  a  prospect  of  temporal  gain  or  glory,  but  through  a 
desire  to  meliorate  the  condition,  and  save  the  souls  of  barbarous  and 
sull'ering  nations.  The  dauntless  enterprises  and  fearful  peregrinations  of 
many  of  these  virtuous  men,  if  properly  appreciated,  would  be  found  to 
vie  in  romantic  daring  with  the  heroic  achievements  of  chivalry,  with 
motives  of  a  purer  and  far  more  exalted  nature.”" 

But  the  chief  fault  of  Mr.  Webster’s  picture  is  its  evident  partiality. 
He  sins  more  by  omission  than  by  commission.  Keeping  all  the  faults  of 
the  pilgrim  fathers  carefully  concealed,  he  presents  us  only  their  good 
qualities  over  highly  colored :  while,  on  the  other  hand,  he  hides  all  the 
good  deeds  of  the  Spaniards,  and  exhibits  only  their  faults,  and  these 
greatly  exaggerated.  We  will  endeavor  to  supply  this  two  fold  deficiency, 
oy  briefly  stating  some  of  the  good  deeds  of  the  Spaniards,  and  some  of 
the  bad  deeds  of  the  Puritans  of  New  England.  And  we  will  assert  nothing 
in  which  we  will  not  be  fully  borne  out  by  the  authority  of  Irving  and 
Bancroft ;  by  the  former  for  Spanish,  and  by  the  latter  chiefly  for  North 
American  transactions.  We  presume  that  our  orator  will  not  object  to  the 
testimony  of  these  two  men,  both  of  them  Protestants,  both  countrymen 
of  his  own,  and  the  latter  a  brother  New  Englander  of  the  same  old  Puritan 
stock,  and  a  great  admirer  too  of  the  pilgrims.  To  consult  brevity,  we 
will  confine  our  remarks  to  the  Relative  Treatment  of  the  Aborigines  by 
‘the  Spanish  and  English  American  Colonists. 

To  begin  with  the  zeal  manifested  by  the  two  sets  of  colonists  for  the 
religious  improvement  of  the  native  American  races,  how  advantageously 
do  the  Spanish  settlers  compare  with  the  English  colonists  of  America, 
in  this  respect  ?  Irving  says  : 

“  It  is  difficult  to  speak  too  highly  of  the  extraordinary  enterprises  and 
Splendid  actions  of  the  Spaniards,  in  those  days  of  discoveiy.  Reli<nous 
zeal  was  the  very  life  and  soul  of  all  Spanish  maritime  enterprise.  R  was 

1  This  subject  has  been  already  treated  in  some  detail,  so  far  as  Mexico  is  concerned,  in  our  article* 
on  Prescott's  Conquest  of  Mexico. 

2  Irving,  Columbus,  vol.  ii,  p.  326,  Appendix.  Edit.  N.  York,  1831. 


ENGLISH  AND  SPANISH  COLONISTS. 


341 


the  great  motive  whicli  stimulated  Columbus  to  undertake  his  voyage  of 
discovery  ;  it  was  the  darling  scheme  of  the  great  patroness  of  Columbus 
—  Queen  Isabella.  One  of  the  great  objects  held  out  by  Columbus  in  his 
undertaking  was  the  propagation  of  tlie  Christian  faith.  He  expected  to 
arrive  at  the  extremity  of  Asia,  at  the  vast  and  magnificent  empire  of  the 
Grand  Khan,  and  to  visit  the  dependent  islands,  of  which  he  had  read 
such  glowing  accounts  in  the  writings  of  Marco  Polo.  In  describing  these 
opulent  and  semi-barbarous  regions,  he  reminded  their  majesties  of  the 
inclination  manifested  in  former  times  by  the  Grand  Khan  to  embrace  the 
ChrisLian  faith;  and  of  the  missions  that  had  been  sent  by  various  Pontiffs 
and  pious  sovereigns,  to  instruct  him  and  his  subjects  in  Catholic  doctrines. 

He  now  considered  himself  about  to  effect  this  great  woik.’  .  .  .  Isabella 
had  nobler  inducements.  She  was  filled  with  pious  zeal  at  the  idea  of 
effecting  such  a  great  work  of  salvation.”^ 

This  feeling  of  religious  zeal  continued  to  predominate  in  the  mind  of 
Columbus,  throughout  his  long  and  eventful  career  : 

“  In  all  his  voyages,  he  will  be  found  continually  seeking  after  the  ter¬ 
ritories  of  the  Grand  Khan,  and  even  after  his  last  expedition,  and  when 
nearly  worn  out  by  age,  hardships,  and  infirmities,  he  offered,  in  a  letter 
to  the  Spanish  monarchs,  written  from  a  bed  of  sickness,  to  conduct  any 
missionary  to  the  territories  of  the  Tartar  emperor,  who  would  undertake 
his  conversion.”^ 

This  was  his  ruling  passion  strong  in  death.  In  his  last  will  and  testa¬ 
ment,  he  recommended  this  darling  object  of  his  soul  to  his  executors  and 
to  his  son  Diego  : 

*  “  Item  :  when  a  suitable  time  shall  come,  he  shall  order  a  church  to  be 
built  in  the  island  of  Hispaniola,  and  in  the  most  convenient  spot,  to  be 
called  Santa  Maria  de  la  Concepcion;  to  which  is  to  be  annexed  an  hospital 
on  the  best  plan,  like  those  of  Italy  and  Castile.”  .  .  . 

”  Item  :  I  also  order  Diego  my  son,  or  whomsoever  may  inherit  after 
him,  to  spare  no  pains  in  having  and  maintaining  in  the  island  of  Hispaniola, 
four  good  professors  of  theology,  to  the  end  and  aim  of  their  studying  and 
laboring  to  convert  to  our  holy  faith  the  inhabitants  of  the  Indies  ;  and  in 
proportion  as,  by  God’s  will,  the  revenues  of  the  estate  shall  increase,  in 
the  same  degree  shall  the  number  of  teachers  and  devout  persons  increase, 
who  are  to  stuive  to  make  Christians  of  the  natives  ;  in  attaining  which  no 
expense  shall  be  thought  too  great 

Irving  draws  this  character  of  the  great  Columbus  : 

”  He  was  devoutly  pious  ;  religion  mingled  with  the  whole  course  of  his  $ 
thoughts  and  actions,  and  shone  forth  in  all  his  private  and  most  unstudied 
writings.  Whenever  he  made  any  great  discovery,  he  celebrated  it  by 
solemn  thanks  to  God.  The  voice  of  prayer  and  the  rrielody  of  praise  rose 
from  his  ships,  as  they  first  beheld  the  new  world  ;  and  his  first  action  on 
landing  was  to  prostrate  himself  on  the  earth,  and  render  up  thanksgivings. 
Every  evening,  the  Salve  Regina^  and  other  vesper  hymns  were  chauuted 
by  his  crew  ;  and  masses  were  performed  in  the  beautiful  groves  that  bor¬ 
dered  the  wild  shore  of  this  heathen  land.  The  religion  thus  deeply  seated 
in  his  soul,  diftused  a  sober  dignity  and  a  divine  composure  over  his  whole 
demeanor.  His  language  was  pure  and  guarded,  free  from  all  imprecations, 
oaths,  and  otlier  irreverent  expressions.  All  his  great  enterprises  were 
undertaken  in  the  name  of  the  Holy  Trinity ;  and  he  partook  of  the  holy 

2  Ibid.  p.  7C.  3  Id.  ii,  298,  Appeiidi.x.  4  Ibid. 


1  Irvine.  Colniiibus  i.  72. 

2H2 


342 


Webster’s  bunker  hill  speech. 


Sacrament  previous  to  embarkation.  He  observed  the  festivals  of  the 
Church  in  tlie.  'wildest  situations.  The  Sabbatli  was  for  him  a  day  of 
sacred  rest,  on  wliich  he  never  set  sail  from  a  port,  unless  in  a  case  of 
extreme  necessity.”  ‘ 

These  relicfious  sentiments  continued  to  animate  him  to  his  last  breath : 

“  Having  thus  scrupulously  attended  to  all  the  claims  of  affection, 
loyalty  and  justice  upon  earth,  Columbus  turned  .his  thoughts  to  heaven; 
and  having  received  the  holy  sacraments  and  performed  all  the  pious 
offices  of  a  devout  Christian,  he  expired  with  great  resignation  on  the  day 
of  Ascension,  20th  of  May,  1506,  being  about  seventy  years  of  age. 
His  last  words  were :  In  manus  Tuas,  DominCy  commendo  spiritum  meum 
—  into  Thy  hands,  0  Lord,  I  commend  my  spirit.”^ 

It  is  not  a  little  remarkable,  that  he  believed  himself  specially  guided 
by  heaven  in  the  great  work  of  discovering  America.  Thus,  in  the 
representations  which  he  made  to  Ferdinand  and  Isabella,  when  sent 
back  to  Spain  bound  with  chains  by  the  cruel  Bobadilla, 

“He  avowed  in  the  fullest  manner  his  persuasion,  that  from  his  earliest 
infancy,  he  had  been  chosen  by  heaven  for  the  accomplishment  of  those 
two  great  designs,  the  discovery  of  the  new  world,  and  the  rescue  of  the 
holy  sepulchi*e.  For  this  purpose,  in  his  tender  years,  he  had  been 
guided  by  a  divine  impulse  to  embrace  the  profession  of  the  sea.  .  .  . 
His  understanding  had  been  opened  by  the  Deity,  as  with  a  palpable  hand, 
so  as  to  discover  the  navigation  of  the  Indies ;  and  he  had  been  inflamed 
with  ardor  to  undertake  the  enterprise.  Animated  as  hy  a  heavenly  fire* 
he  adds,  ^  I  come  to  your  Majesties;  .  .  .  — who  will  doubt  that  this  liyhl 
was  f  rom  the  holy  Scriptures,  illuminating  you  as  well  as  myself,  with 
rays  of  marvelous  clearness  P  ”  ^ 

Nor  were  Columbus  and  Isabella  alone  in  this;  theirs  was  the  general 
feeling  of  the  age.  Spanish  and  Portuguese  enterprise  was  stimulated  by 
this  exalted  motive.  It  seemed  as  if  divine  providence,  at  this  epooh, 
meant  to  provide  new  and  ample  fields  for  the  exercise  of  this  lofty 
feeling,  in  new  worlds  discovered  or  visited  for  the  first  time,  both  in  the 
east  and  in  the  west ;  and  thereby  more  than  compensate  the  Church  by 
accessions  to  her  numbers  from  among  new  people,  for  wliat  she  was  to 
lose  in  the  religious  dissensions  of  the  sixteenth  century.  While  the 
Catholic  Columbus  was  discovering  America,  another  illustrious  Catholic, 
the  Portuguese  Vasco  de  Gama,  doubled,  for  the  first  time,  the  Cape  of 
4  Good  Hope  in  1497  ;  and  another  Portuguese,  Pedro  Alvares  Cabral, 
discovered  Brazil,  and  made  a  voyage  to  the  East  Indies.  Nor  were  the 
vast  territories,  thus  thrown  open  to  Europeans,  left  unimproved  by  religious 
culture.  Wherever  the  Spaniards  and  the  Portuguese  penetrated,  there  also 
the  Catholic  religion  was  established.  The  missionary  accompanied  the 
Conqueror,  softening  the  horrors  of  war,  and  planting  the  cross  of  Christ 
by  the  side  of  the  banner  of  the  earthly  monarch.  A  holy  zeal  for  the 
salvation  of  souls  thus  stimulated,  accompanied,  and  crowned  every  noble 
enterprise  of  discovery  and  conquest. 

It  had  ever  been  so  in  Catholic  times.  Religious  zeal  had  ever  culmi- 
nated  over  every  merely  earthly  motive  or  consideration.  Tlius  when  the 

1  Ibid.  Tol.  ii,  pp.  202,  203.  2  Ibid.  p.  193.  3  Ibid.  p.  74. 


ENGLISH  AND  SPANISH  COLONISTS. 


343 


three  great  Venitian  navigators  and  travelers,  Nicholas,  Maffeo,  and  Marco 
Polo,  penetrated  into  the  heart  of  Asia  in  the  thirteenth  century,  the  first 
thing  thought  of  was  the  introduction  of  Christianity  into  the  new  regions 
they  explored.  The  two  first  returned  to  Europe  in  1269,  witli  letters 
from  the  Grand  Khan  to  the  Pope  asking  for  one  hundred  Christian 
missionaries.  They  revisited  Tartary  in  1271,  carrying  with  them  two 
missionaries,  and  letters  from  Pope  Gregory  X.‘  And  whoever  will  read 
the  annals  of  the  Church  of  the  thirteenth  and  fourteenth  centuries  will 
not  fail  to  remark,  what  vast  accessions  to  her  numbers  were  made  in 
Asia  during  that  period,  chiefly  by  missionaries  from  the  Franciscan  and 
Dominican  orders,  then  recently  established.^ 

When  Columbus  discovered  the  new  world,  the  first  thing  he  did  on 
landing,  was  “to  throw  himself  on  his  knees,  kiss  the  earth,  and  return 
thanks  to  God  with  tears  of  joy.”  He  then  erected  a  banner  “emblazoned 
with  a  green  cross,”  and  recited  a  prayer,  which  was  subsequently  used 
by  Bilboa,  Cortes,  Pizarro,  and  other  Spanish  commanders  in  their  voyages 
of  discovery.  The  purport  of  the  latter  portion  of  it  was,  to  “  bless  and 
glorify  the  name,  and  to  praise  the  majesty  of  God,  for  having  vouchsafed 
to  make  use  of  His  humble  servant,  as  an  instrument  for  having  His  holy 
name  made  known  and  preached  in  that  other  part  of  the  world;”  —  so 
paramount  was  this  consideration  of  religion  in  all  that  the  Spaniards 
undertook  or  did.^  The  consequence  of  all  this  religious  zeal  has  been 
the  conversion  to  Christianity  of  the  vast  body  of  the  aboriginal  popula¬ 
tion  of  Spanish  America;  and  this  result  alone,  should  silence  forever 
those  whose  prejudice  leads  them  to  sneer  at  the  bigotry  and  avarice 
of  the  Spaniards. 

Was  the  result  similar  in  North  America?  The  Jesuits,  indeed, 
converted  whole  tribes  of  Indians  in  Canada,  and  in  the  valley  of  the 
Mississippi. But  what  did  the  Puritans  do,  with  all  their  affected 
“purity  of  purpose,  and  with  all  their  cant  about  disinterested  zeal  for 
religion?  They  did  very  nearly  nothing.  If  they  had  “a  generally 
honest  purpose  of  introducing  knowledge  as  well  as  Christianity  among 
the  Indians  ”  —  it  must  have  remained  a  mere  purpose  ;  for  in  general 
they  seemed  to  take  very  little  concern  about  the  matter.  We  read  of 
their  preachers  persecuting  one  another, —  driving  K^ger  Williams,  and 
Ann  Hutchison,  Wheelwright,  Aspinwall  and  others  into  the  wilderness 
for  opinion’s  sake,  deeming  them  “unfit  to  live  in  the  colony;”*  we 
read  of  their  assisting  at  the  trial  and  hanging  of  witches  at  Salem  ;  and 
of  their  marching  with,  and  saying  long  prayers  for,  the  armies  that  were 
engaged  in  exterminating  the  poor  Indians  ;  but  did  they  do  anything 
to  evangelize  them  ?  We  read  of  John  Eliot  and  a  few  others  making 


1  For  ail  inti'resting  notice  of  the  three  Polo’s,  see  Irving,  Columbus  ii  290  seqq. 

2  Full  particulars  on  this  most  interesting  subject  will  be  found  in  the  Church  History  of«Beo- 
chetti  —  a  continuation  of  Cardinal  Orsi’s  work. 

3  See  Irving,  Columbus  i.  103  note,  for  the  prayer  in  Latin. 

4  See  Bancroft,  vol.  iii,  Chap  20.  for  a  most  interesting  account  of  the  labors  and  success  of  tha 
Jesuit  iiiissioiiiiries  in  North  America  ;  quoted  in  a  previous  paper. 

t  Bancroft,  vol.  i,  pp.  367-8,  and  390  seqq. 


*• 


344 


Webster’s  bunker  hill  speech. 


a  feeble  effort  for  thi-s  purpose,  among  the  Indians  in  the  immediate 
vicinity  of  Hoston  ;  but  Bancroft  testifies  to  their  almost  total  failure. 
“Yet  Christianity  had  not  spread  beyond  the  Indians  on  Gape  Cod, 
Martha’s  Vineyard,  and  Nantucket,  and  the  seven  feeble  villages  around 
Boston.  The  Narragansetts,  a  powerful  tribe,  counting  at  least  a  thous¬ 
and  warriors,  hemmed  in  between  Connecticut  and  Plymouth,  restless 
and  jealous,  retained  their  old  belief ;  and  Philip  of  Pokanoket,  at  the 
head  of  seven  hundred  warriors,  professed  with  pride  the  faith  of  his 
fathers.”  *  The  Puritans  exterminated  a  great  number  of  tribes  as  we 
shall  soon  see; — they  did  not  convert  one  to  Christianity  ! 

The  indefatigable  and  saintly  Father  Sebastian  Basies  labored  with 
earnest  zeal,  for  more  than  a  quarter  of  a  century,  among  the  Indians  of 
Maine,  many  of  whom  he  succeeded  in  converting  to  the  Catholic  faith. 
His  missions  were  in  a  most  flourishing  condition,  when  the  jealousy  of 
the  neighboring  colony  of  Massachusetts  was  aroused  ;  nor  did  it  sleep, 
until  it  brought  about  the  most  barbarous  murder  of  the  good  missionary, 
and  the  massacre,  or  dispersion  of  the  tribes  which  he  had  converted  to 
Christianity  !  The  following  passage  furnishes  a  curious  contrast  between 
the  modus  operandi,  and  the  respective  success  of  Catholic  and  Protestant 
missionaries  in  converting  the  Indians.  “  Tlie  government  of  Massa¬ 
chusetts  attempted  in  its  turn  to  establish  a  mission  ;  and  its  minister 
made  a  mockery  of  purgatory  and  the  invocation  of  saints,  of  the  cross 
and  the  rosary.  ‘My  Christians,’  retorted  Rasies,  ‘believe  the  truth  of 
the  Catholic  faith,  but  are  not  skilful  disputants  and  he  himself 
proposed  a  defence  of  the  Roman  Church.  Thus  Calvin  and  Loyola 
met  in  the  woods  of  Maine.  But  the  Protestant  minister,  unable  to 
compete  with  the  Jesuit  in  the  affections  of  the  Indians,  returned  to 
Boston,  while  the  friar  remained  ‘  the  incendiary  of  mischief.’”^  After 
the  martyrdom  of  Rasies,  so  graphically  related  by  Bancroft,^  and  the 
breaking- up  of  his  missionary  establishments,  “the  influence  by  com¬ 
merce  took  the  place  of  influence  by  religion,  and  English  trading  houses 
supplanted  French  missions.” Thus  it  was,  that  in  numerous  cases  the 
filthy  love  of  lucre  marred  the  noble  work  of  God  !  So  much  for  the 
disinterestedness  of  the  Puritans,  and  their  “  generally  honest  purpose  of 
introducing  knowledge,  as  well  as  Oiiristianity,  among  the  natives  !  ” 

The  early  Spanish  and  Portuguese  navigators  compare  advantageouslv, 
in  character  and  usefulness  to  mankind,  with  those  of  Eno-land  eno-ao-ed 
in  exploring  and  peopling  North  America.  Where,  in  English  naval 
annals  of  discovery,  will  you  find  names  as  illustrious  as  those  cf  Dc 
Gama,  Cabral,  the  Pinzons,  Vespucci,  and  Columbus  ?  In  fact,  the 
early  English  navigators.  Sir  John  Hawkins,  Raleigh,  Drake,  and 
Weymouth,  were  as  unprincipled  as  they  were  adventurous.  They  were 

•s  and  pirates  on  a  large-scale.  We  will  £ifive  a 

few  facts  on  this  subject. 

When  Weymouth  was  about  to  sail  from  the  mouth  of  the  Penobscot, 

1  Hancrofr,  ii,  97.  2  Ibid  iii,  334-5.  3  Ibid.  330,  se^.  4  Ibid. 


If 


ENGLISH  AND  SPANISH  COLONISTS. 


'  345 


five  natives  were  decoyed  on  board  the  ship,  and  Weymouth,  returning 
England,  gave  three  of  tliem  to  Sir  Ferdinand  Gorges,  a  friend  ©f 
Raleigh,  and  governor  of  Plymouth.”*  Of  Sir  John  Hawkins,  Ban¬ 
croft  says  : 

“  The  odious  distinction  of  having  first  interested  England  in  the  slave 
trade  belongs  to  Sir  John  Hawkins.  He  had  fraudulently  transported  a 
whole  cargo  of  Africans  to  Hispaniola  ;  the  rich  returns  of  sugar, 
ginger,  and  pearls  attracted  the  attention  of  queen  Elizabeth,  and  when  a 
new  expedition  was  prepared,  she  was  induced  not  only  to  protect  but  to 
share  in  the  traffic.  In  the  accounts  which  Hawkins  himself  gives  of  one 
of  his  expeditions,  he  relates  that  he  set  fire  to  a  city,  of  which  tlie  huts 
were  covered  with  dry  fallen  leaves,  and  out  of  eight  thousand  inhabitants, 
succeeded  in  capturing  two  hundred  and  fifty.  (Query — how  many 
did  he  burn  ?)  The  deliberate  and  even  self-approving  frankness  with 
which  this  act  of  atro(!ity  is  related,  and  the  lustre  which  the  fame  of 
Hawkins  acquired,  display  in  the  strongest  terms  the  depravity  of  public 

sentiment  (English)  in  the  age  of  Elizabeth . Yet  the  commerce, 

on  the  part  of  England,  in  the  Spanish  ports  was  by  the  laws  of  Spain 
illicit,  as  well  as  by  the  laws  of  morals  detestable  ;  and  when  the 
sovereign  of  England  panicipated  in  its  hazards,  its  profits  and  its  crimes, 
she  became  at  once  a  smuggler  and  a  slave  merchant.”** 

oo 

The  Catholic  Church  used  every  effort  to  prevent  the  slave  trade,  and 
to  mitigate  the  severities  occasionally  exercised  by  the  Spaniards  against 
the  Indians : 

“  A  series  of  papal  bulls  had  indeed  secured  to  the  Portuguese  the 
exclusive  commerce  with  western  Africa,  but  the  slave  trade  between 
Africa  and  America,  was,  I  believe,  never  expressly  sanctioned  by  the 
See  of  Rome.  Even  Leo  X.  declared  that  ‘not  the  Christian  religion 
only,  but  nature  herself  cries  out  against  the  state  of  slavery.’  And 
Paul  III.,  (June  10,  1543)  in  two  separate  briefs,  imprecated  a  curse 
[anathema)  on  the  Europeans,  who  should  enslave  Indians,  or  any  other 
class  of  men.  It  even  became  usual  for  Spanish  vessels,  when  they 
sailed  on  voyages  of  discovery,  to  be  attended  by  a  priest,  whose 
benevolent  duty  it  was,  to  prevent  the  kidnapping  of  the  aborigines.”  ^  — 
.  .  .  “  Ximenes,  the  gifted  coadjutor  of  Ferdinand  and  Isabella,  saw  in 
advance  the  danger  which  it  required  centuries  to  reveal,  and  refused  to 
sanction  the  introduction  of  negroes  into  Hispaniola,  believing  that  the 
favorable  climate  would  increase  their  number,  and  infallibly  lead  them 
to  a  successful  revolt.”  *' 

And  yet,  in  spite  of  Roman  Pontiffs  and  of  Ximenes,  negroes  were 
extensively  introduced  into  Hispaniola,  thanks  chiefly  to  the  unprincipled 
avarice  of  Sir  John  Hawkins,  of  Queen  Elizabeth,  and  of  the  English ; 
and  the  prediction  of  the  great  Ximenes  was  fully  verified,  in  the 
massacre  and  expulsion  of  the  whites  from  that  island  ! 

Much  has  been  said  and  written  about  the  cruelty  of  the  Spaniards 
towards  the  Indians, — about  their  having  forced  them  to  labor  in  the 
mines,  sold  them  into  bondage,  and  wasted  their  numbers  by  cruel  exac¬ 
tions,  and  by  fire  and  sword.  We  have  no  mission  to  delend  these 
cruelties  ;  but  we  are  convinced  that  there  is  much  exaggeraLion  on  the 


1  Bancroft  i,  115 


2  Ibid,  i,  173  seq. 


3  Ibid,  i,  172. 


4  Ibiii. 


346 


Webster’s  bunker  iiilu  speech. 


subject.  The  severities  in  question  were  neither  general,  nor  long  con¬ 
tinued,  nor  authorized  by  the  Spanish  Government.  They  occurred  in 
the  sudden  excitement  of  conquest,  and  they  were  checked  so  soon  as  the 
conduct  of  the  individuals,  who  perpetrated  them,  could  be  investigated. 
Washington  Irving  has  told  us  above,  what  was  the  line  of  conduct 
pursued  by  the  Spanish  government,  and  we  have  also  seen  how  those 
cruelties  were  rebuked  by  the  Roman  Pontiffs.  We  will  give  a  few 
additional  facts.  The  oppression  of  the  Indians  of  Hispaniola  by  the 
weak  and  unwise  Bobadilla 

“Aroused  the  indignation  of  Isabella  ;  and  when  Ovando  was  sent  to 
supersede  Bobadilla  in  1502,  the  natives  were  pronounced  free:  they 
immediately  refused  to  labor  in  the  mines.  Ovando  represented  to  the 
Spanisli  sovereigns  in  1503,  that  ruinous  consequences  resulted  to  the 
colony  from  this  entire  liberty  granted  to  the  Indians.  He  stated,  that  the 
tribute  could  not  be  collected,  for  the  Indians  were  lazy  and  improvident, 
that  the  natives  could  only  be  kept  from  vices  and  irregularities  by  occupa¬ 
tion  ;  that  they  now  kept  aloof  from  the  Spaniards,  and  from  all  instruction 
in  the  Christian  faith.  This  last  consideration  had  an  influence  with 
Isabella,  and  drew  a  letter  from  the  sovereigns  to  Ovando  in  1503,  in 
which  he  was  ordered  to  spare  no  pains  to  attach  the  natives  to  the  Spanisli 
nation  and  the  Catholic  religion.  To  make  them  labor  moderately,  if 
absolutely  essential  to  their  own  good,  but  to  temper  authority  with  persua¬ 
sion  and  kindness.  To  j)ay  them  regularly  and  fairly  for  their  labor,  and 
to  have  them  instructed  in  religion  on  certain  days’*^ 

Such  was  the  general  and  authorized  policy  of  Spain  in  regard  to  the 
Indians.  Was  not  its  basis  humanity,  hallowed  by  religion  ?  Again, 
when  some  of  the  Indians  were  brought  to  Spain,  and  sold  at  Seville  as 
slaves,  “  Isabella,  in  a  transport  of  virtuous  indignation,  ordered  them  to 
be  sent  back  to  their  country.”^  After  the  death  of  De  Soto,  the  Spaniards 
were  about  to  abandon  their  conquest  of  Florida.  At  this  juncture,  Louis 
Cancello  and  two  other  Dominicans  offered  their  services,  to  preach  to  and 
convert  those  savages  whom  Spanish  arms  could  not  conquer.  Their 
offer  was  accepted  ;  but  these  devoted  men  all  fell  martyred  victims  to 
their  zeal.  “  Christianity  was  to  conquer  the  land,  against  which  so 
many  expeditions  had  failed.  The  Spanish  governors  were  directed  to 
favor  th-e  design ;  all  slaves  that  had  been  taken  from  the  northern  shore 
of  the  gulf  of  Mexico  weie  to  be  manumitted  and  restored  to  their 
country.”^  So  true  is  it,  that  wherever  the  authority  of  the  Spanish 
government  and  of  the  Catholic  religion  could  be  fully  felt,  there  the 
fetters  of  the  captive  were  stricken  off,  and  he  became  free.  And  at  this 
day,  there  is  scarcely  a  vestige  of  slavery  in  all  Spanish  America.'* 

Most  of  the  accounts  of  Spanish  cruelty  rest  upon  the  authority  of  Las 
Casas.  He  was  a  great  and  good  man,  but  the  statements  contained  in  his 
work  entitled  “  Relation  of  the  Indies,”  should  be  received  with  many 
grains  of  allowance.  The  impression  made  upon  his  exquisitely  sensitive 
heart,  by  the  sight  of  the  wrongs  inflicted  on  his  beloved  Indians,  was  so 

1  Irving,  Columbus  ii.  162.  2  Irving,  Columbus  ii.  320.  3  Bancrofc  i.  60. 

4  The  Pt>rtuguese  colonies  have  not  in  this  respect  imicateil  the  example  of  those  established  by 
Spain.  Slavery  is  also  maintained  on  the  Spanish  Islands  of  Cuba  and  Porto  Rico. 


ENGLISH  AND  SPANISH  COLONISTS.  347 


acute,  and  his  interest  for  redressing  their  grievances  so  intense,  that  in 
speaking  of  the  cruelties  practiced  against  them  he  greatly  exaggeiated. 
Almost  all  the  critics  admit  this.  Dr.  Robertson  and  Washington  Irving 
both  give  the  same  opinion. ‘  Charlevoix  says,  “that  he  had  too  lively 
an  imagination,  and  permitted  himself  to  be  carried  by  away  it ;  ”  and 
“there  reigns  in  his  book  a  spirit  of  over  sensitiveness  and  exaggeration, 
that  makes  greatly  against  it.”  ^  His  statements  were  controverted  at  the 
time  by  Dr.  Sepulveda  ;  and  a  lively  controversy  was  carried  on  in  Spain. 
Charles  V.  and  the  learned  Dominico  Soto,  his  confessor,  embarrassed  by 
contradictory  statements  from  the  two  parties,  could  not  come  to  a 
decision  as  to  the  real  merits  of  the  dispute. 

But  the  unremitted  efforts  of  Las  Casas  to  meliorate  the  spiritual  and 
temporal  condition  of  the  Indians  are  above  all  praise  : 

“  The  whole  of  his  future  life,  a  space  exceeding  sixty  years,  was 
devoted  to  vindicating  the  cause,  and  endeavoring  to  meliorate  the  sufter- 
ings  of  the  natives.  As  a  missionary,  he  traversed  the  wilderness  of  tlie 
new  world  in  various  directions,  seeking  to  convert  and  civilize  them  ;  as 
a  companion  and  protector,  he  made  several  voyages  to  Spain,  vindicated 
their  wrongs  before  courts  and  monarclis,  wrote  volumes  in  their  behalf, 
and  exhibited  a  zeal  and  constancy,  and  intrepidity,  worthy  of  an  apostle. 
He  died  at  an  advanced  age  of  ninety-two  years,  and  was  buried  at 
Madrid,  in  the  church  of  the  Dominican  convent  of  Atocha,  of  which 
fraternity  he  was  a  member.”  ^ 

Such  was  Las  Casas  ;  and  yet  he  was  but  one  of  a  numerous  band  of 
devoted  men.  What  a  contrast  between  his  spirit  and  life,  and  that  of  any 
of  the  Puritan  preachers  of  New  England  !’  Take,  for  example.  Cotton 
Mather,  one  of  the  most  distinguished  among  the  ministers  of  the  pilgrims. 
How  fierce  and  fanatical  the  spirit  he  displayed  throughout  his  long  life, 
and  especially  during  the  little  reign  of  terror,  —  from  February  to 
October  of  the  year  1692,  —  while  the  trials  for  witchcraft  were  going  on 
at  Salem!  He  and  his  creature,  the  deputy  governor  Stoughton,  together 
with  the  ministers  Parris  and  Noyes,  got  up  and  enacted  that  comic  tragedy, 
in  which  great  numbers  of  men,  women,  and  children  perished  on  the  scaf¬ 
fold  :  “  And  uttering  a  midnight  cry,  he  wrestled  with  God  to  awaken 

the  churches  to  something  remarkable.  A  religious  excitement  was 
resolved  on.  ‘  I  obtained  of  the  Lord  that  he  would  use  me,’  says  the 
infatuated  man,  ‘  to  be  a  herald  of  His  kingdom  now  approaching.’  ”  •* 
Whoever  reads  the  account  of  these  strange  proceedings,  as  given  by 
Bancroft,  must  feel  his  blood  tingle  in  his  veins,  and  must  sigh  over  the 
strange  fanaticism  of  the  pilgrims. 

What  will  be  thought,  for  instance,  of  this  curious  extract  from  the 
records?  “At  the  trial  of  George  Burroughs,  a  minister,  the  bewitched 
persons  pretended  to  be  dumb.  ‘  Who  hinders  those  witnesses,’  says 
Stoughton,  ‘  from  testifying  ?’  ‘  I  suppose  the  devil,’  answered  Burroughs. 

1  Irving,  Columbus  ii.  p.  325 ;  Appendix.  Dr.  Robertson  calls  him  “  a  restless  and  dissatislied 
man.”  History  of  America. 

2  Ilisttiiie  de  8.  Douiingue,  L.  5,  A.  D.  515,  &  L.  6,  A.  D.  1547. 

3  Irving,  Columbus  ii.  320. 


4  llainToft  iii.  81. 


348 


Webster's  bunker  hill  speech. 


‘How  comes  tlie  devil,’  retorted  the  chief  judge,  ‘  so  loath  to  have  any  tes¬ 
timony  borne  against  you?’  And  the  question  was  effective.  Besides  he 
had  given  proofs  of  great,  if  not  preternatural  muscular  strength.  Cotton 
Mather  calls  the  evidence  ‘enough  ;’  the  jury  gave  a  verdict  of ‘guilty.’”* 
What  will  be  thought  of  the  fierce  exclamation  of  the  minister  Noyes, 
when  eight  persons  were  hung  up  together  for  witchcraft;  “there  hang 
eight  fire-brands  of  hell  !”^  And  what  of  the  heartless  speech  of  Cotton 
Mather  to  the  crowd  assembled  to  witness  the  execution  of  Burroughs  ?^ 
Alas  for  human  nature,  if  these  men  are  to  be  held  up  as  paragons  for 
imitation  ! 

It  ill  becomes  the  children  of  the  pilgrim  fathers  to  taunt  the  Spaniards 
with  their  inhumanity  to  the  natives.  The  Puritans  of  New  England  have 
to  settle  a  much  deeper  and  darker  score  in  this  matter.  It  may  not  be 
generally  known,  that  it  was  quite  common  of  old  to  kidnap  and  sell  into 
foreign  bondage  the  Aborigines  of  North  America.  Yet  no  fact  of  history 
is  more  undoubted  ;  “The  practice  of  selling  the  natives  of  North  America 
into  foreio*n  bondao*e  continued  for  near  two  centuries,  and  even  the 
sternest  morality  pronounced  the  sentence  of  slavery  and  exile  on  the 
captives,  whom  the  field  of  battle  had  spared.  The  excellent  Winthrop 
enumerates  Indians  among  his  bequests.  The  articles  of  the  early  New 
England  confederacy  class  persons  among  the  spoils  of  war.  A  scanty 
remnant  of  the  Pequod  tribe  in  Connecticut,  the  captives  treacherously 
made  by  Waldron  in  New  Hampshire,  the  harmless  fragments'of  the  tribe 
of  Annawon,  the  orphan  offspring  of  King  Philip  himself,  were  all  doomed 
to  the  same  hard  destiny  of  perpetual  bondage.  The  clans  of  Virginia 
and  Carolina,  for  more  than  a  hundred  years,  were  hardly  safe  against  the 
kidnapper.  The  universal  public  (English)  mind  was  long  and  deeply 
vitiated.’ ** 

The  treatment  of  the  Indians  by  the  Catholics  of  Maryland  is  a  brilliant 
exception  to  this  remark,  and  forms  one  bright  page  at  least  in  our^early 
colonial  history.  True,  a  border  war  raged  there  also  for  a  brief  space, 
commenced  by  the  Indians,  who  had  not  yet  entirely  recovered  from  the 
jealousies  which  the  malignant  Clayborne  had  infused.”  But  soon  “peace 
was  re-established  on  the  usual  terms  of  submission  and  promises  of 
friendship,  and  rendered  durable  by  the  prudent  legislation  of  the  assembly, 
and  the  firm  humanity  of  the  government.  The  pre-emption  of  the  soil 
was  reserved  to  Lord  Baltimore,  kidnapping  an  Indian  made  a  capital 
ofience,  and  the  sale  of  arms  prohibited  as  a  felony.”® 

Where  now  are  the  numerous  and  flourishino:  tribes  of  Indians  which 
once  peopled  New  England  ?  Where  are  the  Pokanokets,  the  Narragan- 
setts,  the  Pequods,  the  Mohegans,  and  the  Mohawks,  to  say  nothing  of 
other  tribes  ?  All  have  disappeared  from  the  face  of  the  earth,  thanks  to 


1  Biincron,  iii.  84.  2  Ibid.  p.  93.  3  Bancrofr,  ibid. 

4  Ibid  P.  I,  168-9.  Speaking  of  the  traffic  in  white  slaves  sold  to  the  colonies,  Bancroft  says  :  At 
the  cori'espoiidiiig  period  in  Ireland,  the  crowded  exportation  of  Irish  Catholics  was  a  frequent 
event,  and  wtts  attended  by  aggravations  hardly  inferior  to  the  usual  atrocities  of  the  African  slave 
trade,  i.  176.  5  Bancroft,  i,  2u3. 


ENGLISH  AND  SPANISH  COLONISTS. 


349 


the  cold-blooded  policy  and  heartless  cruelty  of  the  Puritans  !  They  all 
vanished  at  the  first  dawn  of  English  civilization,  like  snow  under  the  rays 
of  the  sun  !  First  over-reached  in  trade  by  the  cunning  Yankees,  then 
hemmed  up  within  restricted  territories,  then  goaded  into  war,  and  then 
exterminated  by  fire  and  sword:  —  such  was  in  general  the  mode  of  dealing 
with  the  poor  natives  of  the  north-eastern  states ;  a  heartless  policy  sub¬ 
sequently  followed,  with  a  few  honorable  exceptions,  by  the  North  American 
colonists.  These  are  strong  assertions,  and  they  must  prove  unpalatable 
to  those  descendants  of  the  pilgrims,  who  boast  their  pure  “  Anglo  Saxon 
blood,”  and  taunt  the  Spaniards  with  their  cruelty.  But  we  will  make 
them  all  good  by  indubitable  testimony. 

The  Pokanokets  were  the  first  tribe  which  sheltered  the  pilgrims  after 
their  landing  on  Plymouth  rock :  and  they  were  the  first  to  fall  victims  to 
their  insidious  and  ungrateful  policy.  The  venerable  old  chief  Sachem  of 
this  tribe,  Massasoit, —  who  had  thrown  open  the  door  of  his  wigwam  to 
the  new  comers,  had  fed  them  with  his  bread,  warmed  them  at  his  fire, 
and  cordially  welcomed  them  to  the  new  world,  had  already  departed  this 
life,  else  he  might  have  lived  so  witness  the  wanderings  of  his  fugitive  son^ 
king  Philip  of  Mount  Hope,  and  the  cruel  bondage  under  the  burning  sun  of 
Bermuda,  of  his  orphan  grand-son,  the  only  heir  to  his  dignity,  and  the 
last  of  his  race  ! 

We  have  already  seen  what  reliance  is  to  be  placed  on  the  assertion  of 
Mr.  Webster,  “  that  the  Pilgrims  recognized  the  right  of  the  natives  to 
the  soil.”  Bancroft  will  tell  us  how  they  recognized  this  right  in  the 
Pokanokets.  Repeated  sales  of  land  had  narrowed  the  domains  of  these 
original  proprietors  of  the  soil  : 

“And  the  English  had  artfully  crowded  them  into  the  tongues  of  land, 
as  most  suitable  and  convenient  for  them.*  There  they  could  be  more 
easily  watched  for  the  frontiers  of  the  narrow  peninsulas  were  inconsid¬ 
erable.  Thus  the  two  chief  seats  of  the  Pokanokets  were  the  necks  of 
land,  which  we  now  call  Boston  and  Tiverton.  As  population  pressed  on 
other  savages,  the  west  was  open:  but  as  the  English  villages  drew  nearer 
and  nearer  to  them,  their  hunting  grounds  were  put  under  culture;  and, 
as  the  ever  urgent  importunity  of  the  English  (pilgrims)  was  quieted  for 
a  season  by  partial  concessions  from  the  unwary  Indians,  their  natural 
parks  were  turned  into  pastures  ;  their  best  fields  for  planting  corn  were 
gradually  alienated ;  their  fisheries  were  impaired  by  more  skillful  methods; 
and  as  wave  after  wave  succeeded,  they  found  themselves  deprived  of 
their  broad  acres,  and  by  their  own  legal  (!)  contracts,  driven  as  it  were 
into  the  sea.”** 

As  they  were  not  amphibious  and  could  not  starve,  they  naturally 
became  indignant ;  and  “  when  the  expressions  of  common  passion  were 
repeated  by  an  Indian  tale-bearer,  fear  magnified  the  plans  of  the  tribes 
into  an  organized  scheme  of  resistance.”^  King  Philip,  their  chief 

1  Winslow,  a  cotemporary  quoted  by  Bancroft,  avows  this  cruel  policy. 

2  Vol.  ii,  p.  99.  The  first  chief  who  made  a  treaty  with  the  I’ilgrims  was  Massasoit,  who  observed 
it  religiously  as  long  as  he  lived.  It  is  curious  that,  before  he  ratified  the  treaty  he  drank  a  prodi¬ 
gious  draft  of  rum.  (See  Ist  IJ.  of  Hist.  p.  29.)  So  much  for  early  Yankee  .shrewdness  in  bargaining! 

S  Ibid. 

2  I 


350 


Webster’s  bunker  hill  speech. 


Sachem  was,  on  suspicion,  summoned  before  a  Puritan  tribunal,  to  which 
he  had  been  once  before  compelled  to  deliver  up  his  arms.  The 
indignation  of  his  tribe  broke  out  into  a  flame  at  this  indignity  offered  to 
tlieir  chief,  and  the  Indian  informer  who  had  betrayed  him  was  mur¬ 
dered.  The  murderers  were  ferreted  out,  condemned,  and  hung  ;  the 
Indians  retaliated  on  the  American  settlers,  and  thus  a  war  of  extermina¬ 
tion  broke  out  in  New  England.’  The  Pokanokets  were  exterminated, 
and  Philip  became  a  wanderer  : 

“  Once  he  escaped  narrowly,  leaving  his  wife  and  only  son  prisoners. 
*My  heartbreaks,’  cried  the  tattooed  cbieitain,  in  the  agony  of  his  grief — 

‘  now  I  am  ready  to  die  !  ’  His  own  followers  began  to  plot  against  him 
to  make  terms  for  themselves,  and  in  a  few  days  he  was  shot  by  a  faithless 
Indian.  The  captive  orphan  was  transported.  So  perished  the  princes 
of  the  Pokanokets  !  Sad  to  them  had  been  their  acquaintance  with  civili¬ 
zation  !  The  first  ship  that  came  on  her  coast  had  kidnapped  men  of 
their  kindred  ;  and  now  the  harmless  boy,  who  had  been  cherished  as  an 
only  child,  and  the  future  Sachem  of  their  tribes,  the  last  of  the  family  of 
Massasoit,  was  sold  into  bondage,  to  toil  as  a  slave  under  tlie  sun  of 
Bermuda  !  ” 

The  Narragansetts  do  not  appear  to  have  joined  the  alleged  Indian 
leaofue  aofainst  the  whites.  Yet,  when  the  war  broke  out,  “  the  little 
army  of  the  colonists  entered  the  territories  of  the  Narragansetts,  and 
from  the  reluctant  tribe  extorted  a  treaty  of  neutrality,  with  a  promise  to 
deliver  up  every  hostile  Indian.”*  And  because,  in  violation  of  this 
extorted  treaty,  they  subsequently  had  the  humanity  to  afford  shelter 
to  such  of  their  fugitive  brethren  among  the  Pokanokets,  as  had  escaped 
extermination  : 

“  It  was  resolved  to  regard  them  as  enemies ;  and  a  little  before  the 
winter  solstice,  a  thousand  men  levied  by  the  united  colonies,  and 
commanded  by  the  brave  Josiah  Winslow,  a  native  of  New  England, 
invaded  their  territory.  .  .  .  Feeble  palisades  could  not  check 

the  determined  valor  of  the  white  men,  and  the  group  of  Indian  cabins 
was  soon  set  on  fire.  Thus  were  swept  away  the  humble  glories  of  the 
Narragansetts.  The  winter’s  store  of  the  tribe  ;  their  curiously  wrought 
baskets  full  of  corn;  their  famous  strings  of  Wampum  ;  their  wigwams 
nicely  lined  with  mats, —  all  the  little  comforts  of  savage  life  were 
consumed.  And  yet  more, —  ifAeir  old  men,  their  women,  their  babes 
•perished  by  hundreds  in  the  fire  !  Then,  indeed,  was  the  cup  of  misery 
full  for  these  red  men.  Without  shelter  and  without  food,  they  hid 
themselves  in  a  cedar  swamp,  with  no  defense  against  the  cold  but 
boughs  of  evergreen  trees.  They  prowled  the  forest  and  pawed  up  the 
snow,  to  gather  nuts  and  acorns,  they  dug  the  earth  for  ground  nuts  ; 
they  ate  remnants  of  horse  flesh  as  a  luxury  ;  they  sank  down  from 
feebleness  and  want  of  food.” 

Their  brave  old  chief  Caronchet,  after  wandering  and  suffering  much, 
was  at  length  taken  prisoner.  Yet  his  spirit  was  not  broken.  “  His  life  * 

1  Ibid.  p.  100. 

2  Ibid.  vol.  ii,  p.  108.  The  historian  informs  us,  that  “  in  the  progress  of  the  year,  between  two 
and  three  thousand  Indians  were  killed  or  submitted.’*  Ibid. 

3  Ibid.  p.  102. 


4  Ibid.  p.  104-6 


ENGLISH  AND  SPANISH  COLONISTS.  351 

was  offered  him,  if  he  would  procure  a  treaty  of  peace  ;  he  refused  the 
offer  with  disdain.  Condemned  to  death,  he  only  answered,  I  like  it  well; 
I  shall  die  before  I  say  anything  unworthy  of  myself.”  ‘  The  historian 
closes  the* sad  story  of  the  Narragan setts,  with  these  memorable  words: 
“Of  the  once  prosperous  Narragansetts,  of  old  the  chief  tribe  of  New 
England,  hardly  one  hundred  men  remained.  The  sword,  fire,  famine, 
and  sickness,  had  swept  them  from  the  face  of  the  earth.”  ^ 

If  anything  could  surpass  the  cold  blooded  cruelty  of  these  acts  of 
atrocity,  it  was  the  treatment  of  the  Pequods  of  Connecticut,  whose 
territory  the  children  of  the  pilgrims  had  invaded,  without  purchase  or 
any  equivalent  whatever,  thereby  showing  how  far  “  they  recognized  in 
the  natives  the  right  to  the  soil.”  “  After  nearly  a  whole  night  spent,  at 
the  request  of  the  soldiers  in  importunate  prayer  by  the  ‘  very  learned  and 
godly  Stone,*  *’  ®  the  colonial  army  commanded  by  John  Mason,  proceeded 
to  attack  the  Pequod  towns,  the  principal  of  which  they  surprised  at 
break  of  day  : 

“The  superiority  of  numbers  was  with  them  (the  Peqnods),  and 
fighting  closely  hand  to  hand,  though  the  massacre  spread  from  wigwam 
to  wigwam,  victory  was  tardy.  ‘  We  must  hum  them  shouted  Mason, 
and  cast  a  firebrand  to  windward  among  the  light  mats  of  the  Indian 
cabins.  Hardly  could  the  English  withdraw  to  encompass  the  place, 
before  the  whole  encampment  was  in  a  blaze.  Did  the  helpless  natives 
climb  the  palisades ;  the  flames  assisted  the  marksmen  to  take  good  aim 
at  the  unprotected  men  :  did  they  attempt  to  sally  ;  they  were  cut  down 
by  the  English  broad  swords.  The  carnage  was  complete  :  about  six 
hundred  Indians,  men,  women  and  children,  perished  ;  most  of  them  in 
the  hideous  conflagration!  In  about  an  hour,  the  whole  work  of  destruc¬ 
tion  was  finished,  and  two  only  of  the  English  (Puritans)  had  fallen  in 
the  battle.  The  sun,  as  it  rose  serenely  in  the  east,  was  the  witness  of 
the  victory.”^ 

And  such  a  victory  !  We  think  these  facts  abundantly  sustain  the 
statements  made  above.  We  might  pursue  this  line  of  illustration  and 
proof  still  farther  ;  for,  unhappily,  the  materials  for  it  are  but  too 
abundant.  But  we  sicken  at  these  enormities. 

Such  then  were  the  tender  mercies  of  the  Puritans  1  Such  their  claims 
to  our  admiration  and  imitation  1  We  will  not  deny  their  good  qualities  : 
but  we  must  be  allowed  to  think,  that  the  shades  predominated  over  the 
lights  in  their  character  ;  and  that  if,  in  spite  of  its  shades,  their  character 
is  still  luminous,  it  is  with  such  a  lurid  light  as  is  emitted  by  paintings 
belono-ino- to  the  class  called  by  the  Italians  chiarooscuro  —  clear  obscure. 

We  will  leave  Mr.  Webster  to  settle  his  account,  as  best  he  may,  with 
his  two  countrymen,  Irving  and  Prescott,  as  well  as  with  God  and  his 
own  conscience  1  While  he  is  engaged  in  the  settlement,  would  it  not  be 
well  for  him  to  exert  his  powerful  influence  in  New  England,  to  have 

1  Ibid  p.  106.  2  Ibid,  p.  109.  3  Ibid  vol.  !,  p.  399. 

4  Bancroft,  400-1.  It  was  usual  for  the  different  colonial  governments  of  North  America  to  offer 
bounties  for  the  scalps  of  the  Indians.  Thus,  the  government  of  Massachusetts  “  stimulated  the 
activity  of  private  parties,  by  offering  for  each  Indian  scalp  at  first  a  bounty  of  fifteen,  and  after¬ 
wards  of  a  hundred  pounds.”  Bancroft,  iii.  336. 


352 


WEBSTEIl\s  BUNKER  HILL  SPEECH. 


removed  one  dark  spot  from  the  escutcheon  of  his  state, —  to  clear  away 
those  gloomy  ruins  of  Mount  Benedict  which  still  crown  Bunker  Hill,  in  the 
immediate  vicinity  of  tlie  monument,  and  which- “  cast  a  dark  shadow  on 
the  soil  of  Massachusetts  ”  ?  They  too  are  monumental.  ’I*liey  com¬ 
memorate  a  dark  event,  the  injustice  of  which,  is  yet  unredressed  ;  and 
they  prove,  that  the  fierce  and  sternly  intolerant  spirit  of  the  Puritans  is 
not  yet  extinct.  Unless  removed  by  the  justice  of  Massachusetts,  we 
trust  that  those  ruins  will  be  as  abiding  as  the  Bunker  Hill  monument 
itself! 

Since  the  above  was  written,  the  children  of  the  Puritans  have 
exhibited  such  unmistakeable  signs  of  bigoted  intolerance,  as  to  prove  to 
all  the  world  that  they  are  worthy  of  their  illustrious  ancestors.  The 
children  have,  indeed,  far  outstripped  the  fathers  in  the  race  of  persecu¬ 
tion.  Four  or  five  Catholic  churches  sacked  or  destroyed  by  them,  some 
on  the  hallowed  anniversary  festival  of  American  Independence ;  their 
Catholic  fellow-citizens  denounced,  slandered,  and  vilified  by  hired  street 
brawlers  ;  the  mob  spirit  openly  invoked  against  the  property  and  lives  of 
Catholics  :  —  these  are  some  among  the  recent  exploits  of  those  who  boast 
their  “  Anglo-Saxon  blood,’’  and  glory  in  being  the  descendants  of  the 
pilgrim  fathers  1  They  are  heartily  welcome  to  all  the  glory  they  can 
derive  from  such  achievements  as  these  !  . 


XIX.  OUU  COLONIAL  BLUE  LAWS.* 


ARTICLE  I.  —  UNION  OP  CHURCH  AND  STATE. 


Why  we  treat  this  subject — Who  are,  and  who  have  been  the  persecutors  ?— Meaning  of  the  term  ZKi/e 
Z.aiPJ— Effort  at  concealment — Bancroft’s  reserve — Other  historians  of  New  England — Character  ot 
the  Puritans— Their  good  and  their  bad  qualities— Their  treatment  of  the  Aborigines — Their  incon 
sistency— Two  classes  of  Blue  Laws— Union  of  Church  and  State— Conformity — The  franchise— 
Established  religion — Observance  of  the  Sabbath — Severe  enactments — Law  against  priests— Spirit 
of  persecution  in  New  York— Miscellaneous  laws—  Indians  and  wolves — Use  of  tobacco — Manner 
of  dress— Cut  of  the  hair— Matrimony — And  divorce— By  whom  were  the  Blue  Laws  repealed?— 
Seme  Blue  Laws  of  Virginia — The  land  of  “  steady  habits” — Catholic  Colony  of  Maryland, 

If  we  be  asked,  why  we  treat  of  the  Blue  Laws  at  this  particular  time, 
our  answer  is  at  hand.  We  are  moved  by  no  feeling  of  uncharitableness, 
but  simply  by  a  love  of  historic  truth,  and  a  motive  of  just  self-defense.  A 
systematic  attempt  has  been  made  to  fasten  all  the  odium  of  narrow¬ 
mindedness  and  persecution  on  the  Catholic  Church  ;  and  at  present  this 
is  the  favorite  battle-cry  of  those  who  seek,  in  this  free  country,  to  render 
Catholics  hateful  to  their  fellow-citizens,  and  to  deprive  them  even  of  their 
undoubted  civil  rights.  With  strange  inconsistency,  this  undisguised  efibrt 
to  crush  Catholic  liberty  and  rights,  is  made  in  the  name  of  liberty  itself  ! 
It  is  with  this  hallowed  word  on  their  lips,  that  the  misguided  agents  of  a 
truculent  secret  political  society  rush  to  the  sack  or  burning  of  our 
churches,  and  to  the  open  slaughter  or  secret  assassination  of  our  people  ! 
This  much-abused  name  of  liberty  is  the  staple  of  the  hired  street  brawler, 
who  openly  excites  the  mob  to  riot  and  arson,  in  our  heretofore  peaceful 
streets  and  highways.  The  minister  of  religion,  too,  whose  office  should 
incline  him  to  exhort  men  to  the  love  of  God  and  of  the  neighbor,  is  not 
unfrequently  found  to  take  up  the  same  maddening  cry,  and  to  throw  his 
influence  into  the  scale  of  hatred  and  anarchy,  instead  of  that  of  love  and 
peace ! 

*  I.  The  Blue  Laws  of  New  Haven  Cobny,  usually  called  the  Blue  Laws  of  Connecticut ; 
Quaker  Laws  of  Plymouth  and  Massachusetts;  Blue  Laws  of  New  York,  Mar  fund, 
Virginia,  and  South  Carolina.  First  Record  of  Connecticut ;  interesting  extracts  from  Con 
necticut  Records ;  cases  of  Salem  witchcraft ;  charges  and  banishment  of  Rev.  Roger 
Williams,  ^'C.,  and  other  interesting  and  instructive  antiquities.  Compiled  by  an  Antiquarian 
Hartford  :  Printed  by  Case,  Tiffany  &  Co.  1838.  1  vol.  12ino.  pp.  336. 

II.  The  Code  of  1650  ;  being  a  compilation  of  the  earliest  Laws  and  Orders  of  the  Gena'OJ 
Court  of  Connecticut:  also,  the  Constitution,  or  civil  compact  entered  into  and  adopted  bo  the 
towns  of  Windsor,  Hartford,  and  Wethersfield,  in  1638-9.  To  which  are  added  some 
extracts  from  the  laws  and  judicial  proceedings  of  the  New  Haven  Colony,  commonly  called 
Blue  Laws.  Hartford'  Judd,  Loomis  &  Co.  1836.  1  vol.  16mo.,  pp.  119. 

2 1*2  a53 


354 


OUR  COLONIAL  BLUE  LAWS. 


♦ 

The  most  singular  feature  in  the  present  unholy  warfare  agait.st  Catholics 
in  this  country,  is  the  fact,  which  can  be  established  by  the  most  over¬ 
whelming  evidence,  that  while  we  are  made  to  bear  all  the  odium  of  intol¬ 
erance  and  persecution,  our  opponents,  and  they  alone,  are  fairly  open  to  the 
charge,  so  far  at  least  as  the  history  of  this  country  is  concerned.  We  defy 
any  one  to  lay  his  finger  on  the  fact  of  history,  which  proves  that  Catholics 
haveever  been  guilty  of  a  single  actof  persecution  in  the  United  Stats,  either 
before  or  since  the  revolution.  This  matter  is  easilj^  tested.  Our  standard 
histories  are  mostly  the  productions  of  Protestant  writers,  and  their  pages  are 
spread  out  before  tho  world.  If  any  such  act  of  intolerance  can  be  pointed 
out,  as  having  been  perpetrated  by  Catholics  in  this  country,  we  would  really 
desire  to  see  the  evidence,  even  on  respectable  Protestant  authority ;  for 
we  have  never  yet  found  a  solitary  instance,  though  our  reading  in  this 
department  of  history  has  been  tolerably  extensive.  What  we  want  is 
FACTS,  not  WORDS.  Until  our  bitter  opponents  are  prepared  to  meet  this 
fair  and  reasonable  issue,  they  should  surely  remain  silent,  if  they  have 
any  sense  of  decency  or  of  justice  left. 

Have  American  Catholics  ever  attempted  to  get  up  a  persecution  of 
slander  against  their  fellow-citizens  ?  Have  they  ever  employed  street 
preachers  to  vilify  their  brother  religionists  ?  Have  they  ever  sought  to 
burn  Protestant  churches  ?  Have  they  ever  enacted  persecuting  laws, 
when — as  in  the  Maryland  colony — they  had  the  power  to  do  so.  If  they 
have  done  or  attempted  none  of  these  things,  then  why  all  this  bitter 
opposition  to  their  civil  and  religious  rights  in  this  country  ? 

Can  our  enemies  come  out  of  this  ordeal  of  historic  facts  equally 
unscathed?  We  think  not.  The  evidence  of  all  our  colonial  history  must 
be  blotted  out,  before  they  can  hope  to  escape  the  accusation,  that,  while 
so  strongly  denouncing  their  neighbors  for  a  persecuting  spirit,  they  and 
their  ancestors  have  been,  in  point  of  fact,  the  only  persecutors  in  this 
hemisphere  ! 

Much  as  we  regret  to  write  it,  the  narrow-minded  persecuting  spirit  of 
the  Puritans  still  survives  in  their  descendants.  Survives,  —  did  we  say? 
We  are  unjust  to  the  memory  of  the  Puritans.  They  had,  at  least,  some 
method,  some  religion,  and  some  decency  in  their  persecution ;  their  descend- 
.ants  have  retained  only  their  inveterate  hatred  of  Catholicity.  This  does 
not,  of  course,  apply  to  all  or  even  to  the  greater  portion  of  American  Pro¬ 
testants  ;  but  it  is  fairly  applicable  to  all  those  who  are  either  openly  or 
.tacitly  engaged  in  the  present  unscrupulous  and  unprincipled  crusade 
against  Catholics  in  this  Jree  country. 

It  is  with  these  views  that  we  republish  the  articles  written  some  years 
ago  on  our  Colonial  Blue  Laws.  The  facts  we  will  unfold,  entirely  on 
Protestant  authority,  will  show  conclusively,  who  first  brought  the  spirit 
along  with  the  practice  of  persecution  into  this  country. 

We  will  not  pause  to  examine  the  question,  whether  the  denomination 
J^lue  Laws  originated  in  the  trivial  circumstance  that  the  first  printed 
edition  of  them  was  put  forth  enveloped  in  blue  colored  paper,  or  from  the 


UNION  OP  CHURCH  AND  STATE. 


355 


fact  that  the  laws  themselves  were  deemed  intrinsically  blue.  A.  par¬ 
tiality  to  the  former  opinion,  it  may  be,  induced  the  authors  or  publishers 
of  the  two  works  which  we  propose  to  review,  to  have  the  first  put  up  iu 
a  blue  cover,  and  the  second  printed  entirely  on  blue  paper  ;  while,  iu 
confirmation  of  the  latter  opinion,  it  may  be  said  that  the  popular  accepta- 
.tion  of  the  term  certainly  denotes  something  more  than  the  mere  color  of 
paper  or  covering.  The  skillful  autiquary  may,  perhaps,  reconcile  the 
two  opinions,  by  supposing  that  the  name  was  originally  given  in  conse- 
^quence  of  the  circumstance  alluded  to,  but  that  afterwards  it  was 
associated  in  the  popular  mind  with  the  peculiar  nature  of  the  laws  them- 
,selves.  Every  philologist  knows,  that  many  words  ii^  all  languages  have 
been  subject  to  these  variations  in  signification.  One  thing  is  certain, 
that  the  epithet  Blue  Laws  now  denotes  a  system  of  legislation,  marked 
by  narrow-minded  policy  and  proscriptive  exclusiveness. 

There  has  been  manifestly  a  studied  effort  on  the  part  of  the  descendants 
of  the  New  England  Puritans  to  cover  up  and  to  conceal,  as  far  as  was 
possible,  all  traces  of  the  very  peculiar  legislation  adopted  by  their  fore¬ 
fathers.  It  was  only  after  very  considerable  exenions  and  delay,  that  wo 
could  succeed  in  procuring  copies  of  the  two  little  works  under  review ; 

a  circumstance  not  a  little. remarkable,  when  we  consider  that  the  editions 

* 

pf  them  are  comparatively  recent.  '  Whether  it  is  that  the  editions  were 
.bought  up  by  the  curious  almost  as  soon  as  they  were  issued, —  which  we 
think  scarcely  probable, — or  that  they  were  suppressed,  or  met  with  but 
little  encouragement,  we  would  not  venture  to  say.  Certain  it  is,  that  tile 
.copies  are  now  very-scarce,  and  that  the  works  themselves  are  but  little 
known  to  pur  booksellers,  at  least  to  those  in  the  west  and  south.  If  we 
are  to  believe  the  compilers  of  the  works  under  consideration,  they  too 
had  great  difficulty  in  procuring  the  necessary  materials.  The  anonymous 
/‘antiquarian  ”  to  whom  we  owe  the  first  publication,  assures  us  that,  of 
.the  first  edition  of  five  hundred  copies,  comprising  the  laws  compiled  by 
Governor  Eaton  at  the  instance  of  the  general  court  of  the  New  Haven 
colony,  and  printed  in  London  in  1656,  only  two  copies,  so  far  as  his 
lesearches  extended,  are  now  to  be  found  in  this  country.*  Mr.  Silas 
Andrus,  the  author  of  the  other  smaller  work,  tells  us  “  that  the  first 
revision  of  the  early  laws  of  Connecticut  was  never  before  printed;”^ 
that  the  earliest  laws  of  the  colony  were  recorded  only  in  manuscript ; 
and  that  he  had  often  the  greatest  difficulty  in  deciphering  the  text, 
/‘  particularly  for  the  reason  that  the  record,  in  some  parts,  was  nearly 
obliterated,  and  in  others  totally  gone.”  He  adds  :  “  other  parts  of  the 
record,  therefore,  have  been  resorted  to,  and  the  copy  rendered  complete. 
-The  ancient  orthography  has  been  accurately  preserved.”  ^ 

Both  productions  carry  with  them  intrinsic  evidences  of  laborious 
research,  and  of  a  sincere  wish  to  be  accurate ;  and  we  are  quite  sure  that 
the  compilers  will  receive  the  thanks  of  all  who  are  interested  in  the  study 
of  the  early  histoiy  and  antiquities  of  our  country.  All  that  we  regret  is. 


1  Prefact*,  p  6. 


2  Preface. 


3  Ibid 


a56 


OUR  COLONIAL  BLUE  LAWS. 


« 

that  the  works  are  not  gotten  up  in  better  style,  that  they  have  had 
apparently  so  limited  a  circulation,  and  that  the  authors  had  not  the 
courage  to  attach  their  names  to  the  title-page.  Does  it,  then,  really 
require  so  great  an  amount  of  moral  courage  to  tell  the  truth,  when  it  . 
conflicts  with  popular  error  and  prejudice  ? 

It  would  seem  so.  Thus,  how  very  gently  does  not  Mr.  Bancroft,  in 
his  late  popular  History  of  our  colonies,  toucdi  upon  the  eccentricities  of 
character,  and  the  legislative  peculiarities  of  the  pilgrim  fathers!  How 
much,  and  how  very  skillfully  does  he  not  labor  to  soften  down,  or  to 
obliterate  altogether,  the  shades  of  the  historic  picture  1  We  do  not 
venture  to  characterize  this  course  as  disingenuous  and  wholly  unworthy 
the  honest  and  impartial  historian,  —  tliis  might  appear  too  sweeping  a 
censure, — but  we  do  say,  that  we  would  have  admired  the  woi-k  of  our 
historian  much  more,  had  he  ventured  to  tell  the  whole  truth.  He  cannot 
enter  the  plea  of  expediency  ;  for  the  historian  should  prefer  truth  to 
expediency.  He  cannot  plead  ignorance;  for  he  certainly  must  have  had, 
spread  out  before  him,  the  original  records  of  the  New  England  colonies, 
and,  among  others,  those  identical  documents  which  are  reproduced  in  the 
two  works  under  consideration. 

Besides,  he  might  have  imitated  the  candor,  and  profited  by  the  labors, 
of  at  least  three  distinguished  New  Englanders,  who  had  preceded  him 
in  the  historical  career ;  and  who  had  not  feared  to  tell  the  truth,  and  to 
call  things  by  their  right  names.  We  refer  to  Belknap’s  biographical  and 
other  works ;  to  Barber’s  Antiquities  of  New  Haven;  and  to  Peter’s  work 
on  the  Blue  Laws.  The  truth  seems  to  be,  that  Mr.  Bancroft  wrote  his 
work  quite  too  near  Plymouth  rock,  —  “the  blarney  stone  of  New. 
England ;  ”  and  that  he  sought  too  much  to  cater  to  the  prejudices  of  his 
countrymen.  We  can  scarcely  find  any  other  explanation  of  his  great 
discretion,  in  regard  to  matters  upon  which  he  should  have  been  more 
explicit  and  detailed.  Had  he  been  only  as  candid  in  reference  to  the . 
Blue,  Laws,  as  ho  was  in  regard  to  the  persecution  of  Roger  Williams,  of 
the  Quakers,  and  of  the  Witches,  we  would  have  deemed  these  strictures 
wholly  uncalled  for.  As  it  is,  we  may  venture  the  suggestion,  that  the 
eminent  historian  will  yet  supply  the  deficiency  we  have  indicated,  in  some 
future  editioix  of  his  valuable  work,  and  that  he  will  furnish  us,  at  least 
in  an  appendix  or  a  note,  a  faithful  abstract  of  the  early  colonial  Blue 
Laws  of  New  England.  This  is  what  we  purpose  to  attempt  in  the 
present  paper,  which  we  might  entitle, — A  Chapter  that  should  have  been 
in  Bancroft. 

We  would  deem  it  unjust  to  the  memory  of  the  Puritans  who  settled 
New  England,  to  say  that  they  had  no  good  qualities  whatever,  or  even 
that  their  vices  very  greatly  preponderated  over  their  virtues.  Faults 
they  certainly  had,  faults  as  grievous  as  they  were  notorious  and  clearly 
marked.  But  they  had  excellencies  also,  which  should  be  taken  into  the 
account  in  the  estimate  of  their  character.  They  were  bold,  daring, 
courageous,  industrious,  sober,  enterprising,  and  religious  after  their  own 


UNION  OP  CHURCH  AND  STATE. 


857 


fashion.  With  an  arduous  mission  to  accomplish,  they  shrank  not  from 
the  difficulties  which  encompassed  them.  Trained  in  the  painful  school 
of  suft’ering  and  privation,  and  possessed  of  iron  nerve,  they  were  dis¬ 
couraged  by  no  reverses,  appalled  by  no  dangers.  Men  of  less  sternness 
of  purpose  would  have  given  up  the  undertaking  upon  which  they  embarked, 
as  utterly  impracticable.  They,  however,  never  lost  hope  of  a  favorable 
issue  ;  and,  with  an  elasticity  of  character  which  does  them  honor,  they 
surmounted  obstacles,  even  as  a  ship  rides  the  waves  which  threaten  to 
engulf  it  in  the  abyss.  And  they  have  bequeathed  this  same  enterprising 
and  indomitable  spirit  to  their  children. 

This  much  we  say  in  their  praise.  But  when  this  is  said,  all  is  told. 
Their  faults  stood  forth,  at  least  as  prominent  as  their  virtues.  They  were 
narrow-minded,  exclusive,  proscriptive,  and  short-sighted  in  their  char¬ 
acter,  and  in  the  whole  line  of  their  conduct  and  policy.  In  temporal 
matters,  they  sacrificed  every  thing  to  their  own  paltry  interests.  Their 
treatment  of  the  poor  Indians  who  then  peopled  New  England,  is  worthy 
of  a  reprobation  which  we  can  find  no  words  in  our  language  strong 
enough  properly  to  characterize.  We  have  already  stated  the  facts,  on  the 
authority  of  Bancroft;*  and  until  they  can  be  blotted  from  the  pages  of 
history,  we  must  be  excused  from  entertaining  that  lofty  opinion  of  the 
Puritan  character,  which  our  Fourth-of-July  orators,  and  Ply  mouth -rock- 
anniversary  declaimers  would  fain  wish  to  thrust  on  us.  These  fulsome 
eulogists  must  give  us  fuller  and  fairer  statements  of  facts,  ere  we  can 
change  our  opinion  of  the  pilgrim  fathers,  or  regard  their  glowing  repre¬ 
sentations  as  a  faithful  picture  of  the  real  character  of  those  men.  We 
must  have  the  shades,  as  well  as  the  lights  of  the  picture.  We  must  have 
an  account  of  the  Blue  Laws,  of  the  Quaker  Laws,  of  the  Witch  Laws — of 
the  stocks,  of  the  whipping-posts,  and  of  the  branding-irons;  — as  well  as 
of  the  pure  religious  feelings,  and  of  the  lofty  patriotic  aspirations  of  the 
pilgrim  fathers. 

We  must  be  told  that,  whereas  they  fled  from  the  old  world  for  the 
avowed  purpose  of  escaping  a  grinding  Protestant  persecution,  and  of 
breathing,  in  a  virgin  hemisphere,  the  pure  air  of  religious  liberty,  they 
notwithstanding  had  no  sooner  established  themselves  in  their  new  homes, 
than  they  boldly  set  to  work  to  establish  odious  religious  tests,  to  enforce 
religious  uniformity,  to  persecute  and  to  drive  into  the  wilderness  brother 
Protestants  who  had  the  misfortune  to  interpret  the  Scriptures  differently 
from  themselves ;  to  banish,  to  hang,  to  brand,  or  to  bore  with  red  hot 
irons  the  tongues  of  the  inoffensive  Quakers  ;  to  hunt  up  and  exterminate 
the  poor  witches;  and  to  enact  the  Blue  Laws.  Really,  we  can  be  satisfied 
with  nothing  less ;  and  though  the  Plymouth  orators  may  make  wry  faces, 
and  protest  loudly  against  taking  a  medicine  so  very  unpalatable,  they 
should  still  take  it  like  men,  if  they  be  the  lovers  of  historic  truth. 

The  days  of  idle  declamation  and  of  overstrained  or  false  eulogy  are, 
we  fondly  hope,  drawing  to  a  close,  and  those  of  sober  truth  are  beginning 

1  In  the  Review  of  Webster’s  Bunker  Uili  Speech. 


358 


OUR  COLONIAL  BLUE  LAWS. 


to  dawn  upon  us.  Men  now-a-days  will  not  b6  satisfied  with  any  thing 
less  than  the  truth,  and  the  whole  truth,  just  such  as  genuine  history  unfolds 
it :  and  if,  under  this  process,  phantoms  which  we  have  conjured  up  for 
our  own  special  entertainment  should  vanish,  or  if  visions  of  ancestral 
glory  should  disappear  altogether,  or  be  brought  down  to  the  standard  of 
sober  reality,  still  the  whole  truth  must  be  boldly  and  fearlessly  told.  Only 
those  who  are  laboring  to  bolster  up  a  bad  cause  can  fear  the  truth  ;  and 
the  time  has  come  when  even  the  children  of  the  Puritans  must  nerve 
themselves  to  look  the  facts  boldly  in  the  face. 

Nor  let  us  be  told,  that  the  faults  to  which  we  allude  were  but  blemishes 
in  the  otherwise  stainless  character  of  the  pilgrim  fathers.  We  know  that 
this  has  been  often  said,  and  that  it  is  even  fashionable  to  repeat  it ;  but  it 
is  not  the  more  true  for  all  this.  To  every  reasonable  and  impartial  man 
it  must  appear  manifest,  that  the  charges  we  prefer  against  the  early 
colonists  of  New  England,  embrace  something  more  than  mere  trifles  and 
peccadilloes  ;  something  more  than  mere  peculiarities  and  eccentricities ; 
something,  in  a  word,  which  deeply  involves  the  very  substance  of  their 
moral  and  religious  character.  Was  it  a  mere  trifle  to  hang  witches,  to 
hang  Quakers,  to  drive  out  brother  Protestants,  to  butcher  Indians?  Was 
it,  even,  a  mere  trifle  to  adopt  a  system  of  vexatious  legislation,  which 
established  a  harassing  espionage  over  a  man’s  most  trivial  actions,  which 
prescribed  the  cut  of  the  hair,  the  fashion  of  the  dress,  and  the  particular 
occasions  on  which  mothers  might  with  impunity  kiss  their  children,  or 
wives  their  husbands?  Were  all  these  things,  and  many  more  of  a  similar 
character,  mere  blemishes  ? 

We  think  not;  and  we  are  of  opinion  that  all  our  readers  will  agree 
with  us  in  opinion,  if  they  will  only  have  the  patience  to  examine  those 
peculiarities  of  legislation,  an  abstract  of  which  we  will  now  proceed  to 
lay  before  them.  We  shall  state  nothing,  which  has  not  been  taken  from 
authentic  records  by  the  two  writers,  to  whose  works  we  have  called  atten¬ 
tion,  or  which  cannot  be  substantiated  by  other  undoubted  collateral 
authorities.  And  as  the  first  work  on  our  list  comprises  nearly  all  that  is 
contained  in  the  second,  we  may  as  well  admonish  our  readers  that  our 
quotations  shall  be  mainly  taken  from  its  pages. 

The  Blue  Laws  of  New  England  may  be  distributed  into  two  classes  : 
the  first  comprising  those  connected  with  religion  ;  and  the  second,  those 
which  regarded  secular  matters.  We  will  present  several  curious  specimens 
of  legislation  under  each  of  these  classes,  from  the  various  codes  repub¬ 
lished  in  the  volumes  before  us.  The  laws  in  question  v/ere  enacted  by 
the  General  Courts  of  the  different  plantations  in  successive  years ;  and  of 
the  Codes  embracing  them,  that  of  the  Plymouth  or  Massachusetts  colony 
is  the  oldest,  dating  back  as  far  as  1638,  but  that  of  New  Haven,  drawn 
up  by  Governor  Ejiton,  and  printed  in  1656,  is  by  far  the  bluest.  The 
latter  seems  to  have  been  derived,  with  various  additions  and  improve¬ 
ments,  from  the  former.  A  striking  similarity  both  in  principles  and  in 
k.nguage  pervades  all  the  early  New  England  Codes  ;  and  to  avoid  needless 


UNION'  OP  CHUECH  AND  STATE. 


359 


repetition,  we  shall  quote  sometimes  from  one  collection  and  sometimes 
from  another,  presenting  whatever  may  be  considered  most  striking.  1 
1.  Religion  was  a  prominent  feature  in  the  whole  system  of  New 
England  legislation.  Every  Code  which  we  have  examined  is  based  upon 
the  doctrine  of  a  union  of  church  and  state,  and  contains  provisions  rigidly 
enforcing  religious  conformity.  Crimes  against  religion  were  punished 
by  civil  penalties  always  rigid,  sometimes  wantonly  cruel.  The  pilgrim^ 
fathers  had  been  the  victims  of  the  same  principle  in  the  old  world  ;  still 
they  took  most  special  care  to  re-establish  it  forthwith  in  the  new.  They 
required  every  one  to  come  up  to  their  own  peculiar  standard  of  orthodoxy, 
and  to  believe  neither  more  nor  less  than  themselves.  A  complete' 
theocracy,  modified  in  its  development  according  to  times,  places,  and 
circumstances,  appears  to  have  been  the  cardinal  principle,  and  the  darling 
idea  of  all  the  founders  of  New  England.  If  it  be  not  historically  true,' 
—  as  some  one  has  stated  it  to  be, —  that  “they  agreed  to  take  the  law  of 
God  for  their  guidance  until  they  could  make  a  better,^'  it  is  at  least  certain, 
that  they  attempted  to  revive  the  antiquated  system  of  theocratic  govern¬ 
ment  unfolded  in  the  books  of  Moses,  and  that  they  even,  in  many  instances, 
added  to  its  risror. 

The  following  laws  are  predicated  on  the  principle  of  religious  con¬ 
formity,  or  of  union  of  church  and  state  : 

“Whosoever  shall  frequently  neglect  the  public  worship  of  God  on  the 
Lord’s  day,  that  is  approved  by  this  government,  shall  forfeit  for  every  such 
default  convicted  of,  ten  shillings,  especially  where  it  appears  to  arise 
from  negligence,  idleness,  or  profaneness  of  spirit,”  (Laws  of  the 
Plymouth  colon3^)’  *  •• 

“  Every  person  in  this  jurisdiction,  according  to  the  mind  of  God,  shall 
duly  resort  and  attend  worsliip  upon  the  Lord’s  day  at  least,  and  upon 
public  fasting  or  thanksgiving  days,  and  if  any  person,  without  just  cause, 
absent  or  withdraw  from  the  same,  he  shall  for  every  such  sinful  miscar¬ 
riage  forfeit  five  shillings.”  (Laws  of  New  Haven  colony.)^ 

“  It  is  ordered,  that  if  any  Christian  (so  called)  shall  within  this  juris¬ 
diction  behave  himself  contemptuously  towards  the  word  of  God  preached,: 
or  any  member  thereof  called  and  faithfully  dispensing  the  same  in  any 
congregation,  either  by  intenaipting  him  in  Ids  pieaching,  or  falsely 
charging  him  with  errour,  to  the  disparagement  and  hindrance  of  the 
work  of  God  in  his  hands,  (Acts  xiii.  lU  with  Bena  his  note  upon  ity 
every  such  person  or  persons  shall  be  duly  punished  either  by  the  planta¬ 
tion  court,  or  court  of  magistrates,  according  to  the  quality  and  measure 
of  the  offence,  that  all  others  may  fear  to  break  out  into  such  wickednesse.” 
(Gov.  Eaton’s  Laws,)^ 

This  same  principle  is  carried  out  in  a  variety  of  details,  which  ourlimiLs 
do  not  allow  us  to  furnish  ;  but  we  can  not  refrain  from  quoting  two  other 
passages  in  Gov.  Eaton’s  Collection,  which  distinctly  and  boldly  avow  the 
doctrine  itself.  They  are  taken  from  the  “  fundamental  agreement,”  of 
the  plantations  composing  the  New  Haven  colony  ;  and  their  estimated 
importiince  may  be  inferred  from  the  fact,  that  the  first  is  taken  from  the 

1  blue  Laws,  &c  ,  p.  55- 


2  Ibid,  p  127. 


3  Ibid,  p.  17<i 


360 


OUR  COLONIAL  BLUE  LAWS. 


very  beginning  of  the  agreement  itself,  and  the  second  is  the  first 
fundamental  law  on  the  list  of  articles  subjoined  to  that  instrument : 

“  That  none  shall  be  admitted  freemen,  or  free  burgesses,  within  this 
jurisdiction,  or  any  part  of  it,  but  such  planters  as  are  members  of  smno 
one  or  other  of  the  approved  churches  of  New  England ;  nor  shall  any 
such  be  chosen  to  magistracy,  or  to  carry  on  any  part  of  civil  jurisdiction, 
or  as  deputies  or  assistants  to  have  power,  or  vote  in  establishing  laws, 
or  in  making  or  repealing  orders,  or  to  any  chief  military  office  or  trust, 
nor  shall  any  others  but  some  such  church  members  have  any  vote  in  any 
such  elections,  though  all  others  admitted  to  be  planters  have  right  to 
their  proper  inheritances,  and  doe  and  shall  enjoy  all  other  civil  liberties 
and  priviledges  according  to  all  laws,  orders,  or  grants,  which  on  (are?), 
or  hereafter  shall  be  made  for  this  colony.”  ' 

“1.  This  court  thus  framed,  shall  first,  with  all  care  and  diligence, 
from  time  to  time,  provide  for  the  maintainance  of  the  purity  of  religion, 
and  suppress  the  contrary,  according  to  their  best  light  and  directions 
from  the  word  of  Ood.’*  ^ 

To  these  we  will  add  the  foljowing  provisions,  likewise  contained  in 
Gov.  Eaton’s  Code  : 

“  22.  All  the  people  of  God  within  this  jurisdiction,  who  are  not  in 
church  way,  being  orthodox  in  judgment,  shall  have  liberty  to  gather 
themselves  to  a  church  estate.  (1656.) 

“  23.  No  man  shall  be  admitted  to  the  freedom  of  this  jurisdiction,  who 
IS  not  a  member  of  some  church  in  New  England,  approved  by  the 
magistrates  and  churches  of  this  colony.”  (New  Haven  Colony  Laws, 
1656.)^ 

The  following  law,  passed  by  the  General  Court  convened  at  Hartford 
in  1660,  though  it  is  couched  in  language  very  similar  to  that  of  one 
already  quoted,  is  so  curious  that  we  cannot  refrain  from  giving  it  entire. 
After  a  suitable  preamble,  the  Court  says: 

“It  is  therefore  ordered  and  decreed:  That  if  any  Christian  (so 
called)  within  this  jurisdiction,  shall  contemptuously  behave  himselfe 
towards  the  word  preached  or  the  messengers  thereof,  called  to  dispence 
the  same  in  any  congregation  when  he  doth  faithfully  execute  his  service 
and  office  therein,  according  to  the  will  and  mind  of  God,  either  by  inter¬ 
rupting  him  in  his  preaching,  or  by  charging  him  falsely  with  an  error 
w’h  he  hath  not  thought  in  the  open  face  of  the  church,  or  like  a  sonne 
of  Korah,  cast  upon  his  true  doctrine,  or  himselfe  any  reproach,  to  the 
dishonour  of  the  Lord  Jesus  who  hath  sent  him,  and  to  the  disparagement 
of  that  his  holy  ordinance,  and  making  God’s  wayes  contemptible  and 
ridiculous,  that  every  such  person  or  persons  (whatsoever  censure  the 
church,  may  passe)  shall  for  the  first  scandal  be  convented  and  reproved 
openly  by  the  magistrates  at  some  lecture,  and  bound  to  their  good  be- 
havoour.  And  if  a  second  time  they  breake  forth  in  the  like  contemptuous 
carriages,  they  shall  pay  either  five  pounds  to  the  publique  treasury  or 
stand  two  houres  openly  vpon  a  block  or  stoole  four  foott  high  vpon  a  lecture 
day,  with  a  paper  fixed  on  his  breast,  written  with  capiUrlle  letters.  An 

OPEN  AND  OBSTINATE  CONTEMNER  OF  God’S  HOLY  ORDINANCE,  that  OtllCrS 

may  feare  and  be  ashamed  of  breaking  out  into  the  like  wickednesse.” 

Closely  connected  with  this  branch  of  the  subject,  are  the  Laws  regula* 
ting  the  observai  ce  of  the  holy  Sabbath  day.  These  were  surely  blue 

3  Ibid.  p.  142  2  Ibid.  p.  145  •  8  Ibid.  p.  127-8.  4  Ibid.  p.  107-8. 


UNION  OF  CllUKCH  AND  STATE. 


361 


enough.  They  would  have  suited  the  taste  of  the  JeAvs,  even  of  the 
sneeiinu'  Pharisees,  who  were  for  ever  blamiiiQ^  our  blessed  Lord  himself 
for  his  alleged  violations  of  the  holy  Sabbath  day  !  The  Puritans  had 
very  erroneous,  or  at  least  very  highly  exaggerated  notions  in  regard  to 
the  Sabbath  ;  notions  which,  though  manifestly  more  Jewish  than  Chris¬ 
tian,  they  have  faithfully  transmitted  to  their  posterity.  The  Plymouth 
Code  contains  the  following  enactment: 

“  This  court  taking  notice  of  the  great  abuse  and  many  misdemeanours 
committed  by  divers  persons  in  these  many  ways,  profaneing  the  Sabbath 
or  Lord’s  day,  to  the  great  dishonour  of  God,  reproach  of  religion,  and 
grief  of  the  spirit  of  God’s  people.  Do,  therefore,  order,  that  whosoever 
shall  profane  the  Lord’s  day,  by  doing  unnecessary  servile  work,  by 
unnecessary  travailing,  or  by  sports  and  recreations,  he  or  they  that  so 
transgress,  shall  forfeit  for  every  such  default  forty  shillings,  or  he  'publicly 
whipt ;  but  if  it  clearly  appear  that  sin  was  proudly,  presumptuously,  and 
with  a  high  hand  committed,  against  the  known  command  and  authority  of 
the  blessed  God,  such  a  person  therein  despising  and  reproaching  the 
Lord,  Shall  be  put  to  death,  or  grievously  punished  at  the  discretion 
of  the  court.”  ' 

This  law  was  re-enacted,  in  similar  language,  by  the  colonies  of  New 
Haven  and  Hartford,  with  the  addition  of  the  appropriate  scriptural 
references  !  ^  Sabbath  breaking  was  one  of  the  highest  offences  known  to 
the  laws ;  and  the  legislators  descended  to  the  most  minute,  and  even 
ridiculous  details  on  the  subject.  Take  the  following  specimens  from  the 
collection  of  Barber  and  Peters,  which  comprise  laws  before  unpublished, 
and  anterior  to  those  contained  in  the  printed  Code  of  Gov.  Eaton  : 

“  21.  No  one  shall  run  on  the  Sabbath  day,  or  walk  in  his  garden,  or 
elsewhere,  except  reverently  to  and  from  meeting.”  (Barber.) 

“22.  No  one  shall  travel,  cook  victuals,  make  beds,  sweep  house,  cut 
hair,  or  shave,  on  the  Sabbath  day.”  (Barber.) 

“  23.  No  'woman  shall  kiss  her  child  on  the  Sabbath  or  fasting  day.” 
(Barber.*) 

“  24.  The  Sabbath  shall  begin  at  sunset  on  Saturday.”^ 

To  these  add  the  following  singular  law  taken  from  Gov.  Eaton’s  Code : 

“38.  If  any  man  shall  kiss  his  wife  or  wife  her  husband  on  the  Lord’s 
day,  the  party  in  fault,  shall  be  punished  at  the  discretion  of  the  court 
of  mauistrates.”  ^ 

To  this  the  author  of  the  work  from  which  we  are  quoting  appends  tho 
following  note  : 

“  Tradition  says,  a  gentleman  of  New  Haven,  after  an  absence  of  some 
months,  reached  home  on  the  Sabbath,  and  meeting  his  wife  at  his  door, 
kissed  her  with  an  appetite,  and  for  his  temerity  in  violating  this  law,  the 
next  day  was  arraigned  before  the  court,  and  fined,  for  so  palpable  a 
breach  of  the  law  on  the  Lord’s  day.” 

Tliis  reminds  us  of  another  law,  said  to  be  contained  in  a  collection 
which  we  have  not  seen,  by  which  it  was  prohibited  to  brew  beer  on 
Satui-day,  lest  it  should  work,  and  thus  violate  the  Sabbath  on  the  following 
day  !  And  of  another  regulation,  in  which  the  proprietors  of  bees  were 

2  Ibid.  p.  206;  et  alibi*  3  Ibid.  p.  122.  4  Ibid.  p.  130 


1  Ibid.  p.  55. 

2K 


362 


OURCOLONIAL  BLUE  LAWS. 


required  to  close  tlie  orifices  of  the  hives  on  Saturday  evening  hefoH 
sunset,  lest  the  industrious  little  insects  should  be  guilty  of  Sabbath 
breaking!  We  do  not,  however,  vouch  for  the  accuracy  of  either  of 
these  regulations;  though  we  are  persuaded,  that  there  were  many 
such  laws  in  existence  which  were  never  published,  and  the  memory  of 
which  was  preserved  only  by  tradition. 

In  all  the  early  Codes  of  New  England,  blasphemy  was  punished  with 
deatli,  and  profane  swearing  with  tlie  most  severe  penalties.  The  laws  on 
these  subjects,  especially  those  of  Connecticut,  were  flanked  with  abundant 
references  to  Scripture ;  and  it  was  a  settled  maxim,  that,  where  the' 
colonial  law  could  not  reach  a  particular  case,  it  should  be  decided  on 
by  the  law  of  God.  Thus  Gov.  Eaton’s  Code  contains  the  provision 
subjoined : 

“  40.  No  man’s  life  shall  be  taken  away,  honor  or  good  name  shall  be 
stained,  his  person  imprisoned,  banished,  or  punished,  deprived  of  his 
wife  or  children,  or  property  taken,  unless  by  virtue  or  equity  of  some 
6>xpress  law  established  by  the  general  court,  and  published  ;  and  for 
want  of  a  law  in  any  particular  case,  shall  be  judged  by  the  word  of 
God.  (1636.) 

“41.  All  capital  causes,  concerning  life,  or  banishment,  if  there  is  no 
express  law,  shall  be  judged  according  to  the  word  and  law  of  God,  by  the 
generall  court.”  ‘  (1656.) 

As  for  Roman  Catholics,  they  might  expect  no  toleration,  and  little 
mercy  from  people  so  peculiarly  holy.  The  following  is  found  among 
the  Blue  Laws  of  Connecticut :  ’ 

“10.  No  priest  shall  abide  in  this  dominion  :  he  shall  be  banished  and 
SUFFER  DEATH  on  his  rctum.  Priests  may  be  seized  by  any  one  without 
a  warrant.”^  (In  force  before  1656.), 

We  conclude  this  portion  of  the  subject  with  the  following  singular 
specimens  of  legal  cant,  sanctimoniousness,  and  acumen  : 

“  36.  No  one  shall  read  Common  Prayer,  keep  Christmas,  or  saints’ 
.days,  make  minced  pies,  dance,  play  cards,  or  play  on  any  instrument  of 

1  Ibid,  p  130. 

2  Ibid,  p  121.  In  many  of  the  other  colonies  the  Catholics  fared  little  better.  In  New  York 
city,  a  CaMiolic  priest  was  publicly  banged  for  his  religion!  In  relation  to  the  legislation  of  the 
colony  of  New  York,  Chancellor  Kent  says  : 

before  the  adoption  of  the  present  constitution  of  the  United  States,  the  power  of  naturalization 
resided  in  the  several  states;  and  the  constitution  of  this  state,  as  it  was  originally  passed  (Art. 
42),  required  all  persons  born  out  of  the  United  .■‘tates,  and  naturalized  by  our  legislature,  to  take 
an  oath  abjuring  all  foreign  allegiance  and  subjection,  in  all  matters,  ecclesiastical  as  well  as  civil. 
This  was  intended,  and  so  it  operated,  to  exclude  from  the  benefits  of  naturalization  Roman 
Catholics,  who  acknowledge  the  spiritnal  supremacy  of  the  Pope,  and  it  was  the  result  of  former 
fears  and  prejudices  (still  alive  and  active  at  the  commencemen t  of  our  revolution)  respecting  the 
religion  of  the  Romish  (!)  church,  which  European  history  had  taught  (!)  us  to  believe  w;w 
incompatible  with  perfect  national  independence,  or  the  freedom  and  good  order  of  civil  society 
So  extremely  strong,  and  so  astonishingly  fierce  and  unrelenting  was  public  prejudice  on  this 
subject,  in  the  early  part  of  our  colonial  history,  that  we  find  it  declared  by  law  in  the  early  part 
of  the  last  century  (tJolony  laws.  vol.  i,  p.  38,  Idvingston’s  and  Smith's  edition),  that  every  Jesuit 
and  popish  priest,  who  should  continue  in  the  colony  after  a  given  day,  should  be  condemned  to 
perpetual  impriionment ;  and  if  he  broke  prison  and  e.scaped.  and  was  retaken,  he  should  be  put  to 
death.  That  law.  said  Mr.  Smith,  the  historian  of  the  colony,  as  late  as  1756  (.‘Smith's  History  of 
New  York,  p  111),  w.-is  worthy  of  perperual  duration!'’  —  Commentaries  on  Ame-^ican  Law,  vol- 
li,  pp  62-3.  Nen  York,  1827. 


UNION  OF  CHURCH  AND  STATE. 


363 


music,  except  the  drum,  trumpet,  and  jewsharp.'*^  (Barber.  Blue  Laws 
of  Connecticut.)  ‘  ' 

“  1662.  The  court  proposeth  it  as  a  thing  they  judge  would  bo  very 
commendable  to  the  townes  where  God’s  providence  shall  cast  any 
whales,  if  they  sliould  agree  to  set  apart  some  p’te  of  every  such  fish  or 
oyle  for  the  incouragement  of  an  able  and  godly  minister  amongst  themf 
(Blue  Laws  of  Mass.)  ^ 

“  For  the  prevention  of  the  profanation  of  the  Lord’s  day,  it  is  enacted 
by  the  court  and  the  authoritie  thereof,  that  the  select  men  of  the  severall 
townes  of  this  jurisdiction,  or  any  one  of  them,  mayor  shall,  as  there  may 
be  occasion,  take  with  him  the  constable  or  his  deputie,  and  repair  to  any 
house  or  place  where  they  may  suspect  that  any  slothfully  doe  lurke  att 
horn  or  gett  together  in  companie  to  neglect  the  publicke  worship  of  God,- 
or  profane  the  Lord’s  day,  and  finding  any  such  disorder,  shall  returne 
the  names  of  the  p’sons  to  the  next  court,  and  give  notice  of  any  particular 
miscarriage  they  may  have  taken  notice  of,”  &c.  (Id.)  ^ 

II.  Such  were  some  of  the  principal  features  in  the  religious  portion  of 
the  Blue  Laws  of  New  England.  We  will  now  furnish  some  examples  of 
such  laws  as  regarded  civil  matters.  And  it  will  be  seen,  at  a  glance, 
that  the  same  narrow-minded,  exclusive,  and  proscriptive  spirit  pervaded 
the  whole  of  that  most  singular  system  of  legislation. 

The  Criminal  Code  was  peculiarly  rigid  and  unmerciful.  It  multiplied 
capital  offences  beyond  all  the  bounds  of  mercy  or  reason.  Not  only 
idolaU’y  and  blasphemy,  but  also  sins  against  purity,  rape,  and  sudden 
homicide,  were  punished  with  death.*  In  the  Code  of  ^  Connecticut, 
adultery  was  also  visited  with  the  same  penalty.'*  And  all  the  laws 
under  this  head  are  duly  confirmed  by  references  to  the  law  of  Moses 
as  if  the  law  of  Moses  had  not  been  abrogated  by  Christ  L  We  subjoin  a 
few  among  the  more  curious  of  these  laws  : 

“  6.  If  any  person  slayeth  another  suddenly  in  anger  and  cnielty  of 
passion  ;  he  shall  he  put  to  death.”  (Blue  Laws  of  Mass.)  ^ 

“  25.  If  any  man  have  a  stubborn,  rebellious  son  of  16  years  old,  who 
will  not  obey  the  voyce  of  his  father  or  mother,  and  being  chastened,  will 
not  hearken  unto  them,  then  shall  his  father  and  mother,  lay  hold  on 
him,  and  bring  him  to  the  magistrates  assembled  in  court,  and  testifie 
unto  tliem,  that  their  son  is  stubborne  and  rebellious,  and  Avill  not  obey 
their  voyce,  but  lives  in  sundry  crimes ;  Such  a  son  shall  be  put  to 
DEATH.”  Deut.  xxi,  18,  19,  20,  21.  Enacted  1656.  (Blue  lAws  "of 
New  Haven  colony.)® 

“  Whoever  setts  a  fire  in  the  woods,  and  it  burns  a  house,  shall 
SUFFER  DEATH  ,"  and  pcTSons  suspected  of  this  crime  shall  be  imprisoned 
without  benefit  of  bail’'  ( Blue  Laws  of  Connecticut.)  ^ 

For  crimes  not  capital  by  the  laws,  the  most  severe  and  cruel  punish¬ 
ments  were  often  awarded.  The  rack,  the  stocks,  the  whipping-post,  and. 
the  branding-iron,  were  not  unfrequently  put  in  requisition.  Take  the 
following  laws  as  specimens  : 

“9.  If  any  person  commit  burglary,  or  rob  any  person,  he  shall  be 
branded  on  the  right  hand  with  the  letter  B  ;  for  second  ofience,  shall  be 

1  Ibi.j.  i>.  r.;3.  2  Ibid.  p.  48.  3  Ibid  pp.  49,  60.  4  Ibid.  p.  12b. 

6  Ibid  p  52.  6  Page  128.  See  the  same  Jaw  iu  Massachuietts  p  53.  7  Page  122. 


364 


OUll  COLONIAL  BLUE  LaWS. 


hranded  on  his  left  hand,  and  whipt,  and  for  the  third  offence,  he  shall  be 
put  to  deatli.  Jiidg.  xviii,  7.”  (Blue  Laws  of  New  Haven.)  ' 

“  When  it  appears  that  an  accused  has  confederates,  and  he  refuses  to 
discover  them,  he  may  be  racked.^^  (Blue  Laws  of  Conn.)^ 

“30.  Whoever  publishes  a  lie  to  the  prejudice  of  his  neighbour,  shall 
sit  in  the  stocks,  or  be  whipped  fifteen  stripes'*  ^ 

“And  if  any  person  shall  commit  such  burglary,  or  so  rob  in  any 
place  on  the  Lord’s  day,  he  shall  (besides  restitution  and  damage)  for 
the  first  offence  be  burnt  on  the  right  hand  as  before,  and  severely  whipt  ; 
for  the  second  offence,  he  shall  be  burnt  on  the  left  hand,  stand  on  the 
pillory,  be  severely  whipt,  and  wear  a  halter  in  the  day  time  constantly  and 
visibly  about  his  neck,  as  a  mark  of  infamy,  till  the  court  of  magistrates 
see  cause  to  release  him  from  it,”  &c.  (Blue  Laws  of  New  Haven.) '' 

The  following  singular  laws  may  be  classed  under  the  head  miscellaneous. 
We  venture  to  say  that  no  system  of  legislation  that  was  ever  devised, 
either  before  or  since,  can  present  anything  half  so  curious. 

It  would  seem  that,  in  Massachusetts,  Indians  and  wolves  were 
classified  under  the  same  genus  !  In  1675  it  was 

“  Ordered  by  the  court,  that  whosoever  shall  shoot  off  any  gun  on  any 
unnecessarie  occation,  or  att  any  game  whatsoever,  except  att  an  Indian 
OR  A  wooLFE,  shall  forfeit  five  shillings  for  every  such  shott,  till  further 
liber  tie  shall  be  given.”  ^ 

The  good  pilgrims  seem  to  have  had  a  mortal  aversion  for  tobacco. 
Among  the  many  laws  on  this  most  important  subject,  we  select  the  two 
which  follow  : 

“  1640.  That  if  any  person  take  tobacco  whilst  they  are  empannelled 
upon  a  jurie,  to  forfeit  five  sliillings  for  every  default,  except  they  have 
given  up  their  verdict,  or  are  not  to  give  yt  until  the  next  day,  or  dep’t 
the  court  by  consent.”  (Blue  Laws  of  Mass.)® 

“It  is  enacted  by  the  court,  that  any  p’son  or  p’sons  that  shall  be 
found  smoaking  tobacco  on  the  Lord’s  day,  going  to  or  coming  from  the 
meetings,  within  two  miles  of  the  meeting  house,  shall  pay  twelve  pence 
for  every  such  default  to  the  colonie’s  use.”  (Id.)^ 

There  were  many  laws  regulating  the  attire  both  of  males  and’  of 
females,  the  fashions,  and  even  the  cut  of  the  hair !  Thus,  our  author 
tells  us,  that  , 

“  TujpiG  was  an  ancient  law  in  Massachusetts,  that  ladies’  dresses  should 
be  made  so  long  as  to  hide  their  shoe  buckles,  and  in  1630  there  was  an 
act  of  the  general  court  also  prohibiting  short  sleeves,  and  requiring 
garments  to  be  lengthened  so  as  to  cover  the  arms  to  the  wrists,  and 
gowns  to  the  shoe  buckles  ;  (also)  ‘  immoderate  great  breeches,  knots  of 
ribin,  broad  shoulder  bands,  and  they  be,  silk  roses,  double  ruffs  and 
cuffs.’  In  the  same  colony,  in  1653,  J.  Fairbanks  was  tried  for  wearing 
great  boots,  but  was  acquitted.”  ® 

Among  the  Blue  Laws  of  Connecticut,  we  find  the  following  on  this 
subject : 

“  33.  Whoever  wears  clothes  trimmed  with  gold,  silver,  or  bone  lace, 
above  two  shillings  by  the  yard,  shall  be  presented  by  the  grand  jurors, 

1  Page  rJ6.  2  Page  P2S.  3  Ibi.J.  4  i*age  168. 

6  Page  50.  6  l  uge  44  7  Page  40.  8  Page.s  131-2. 


UNION  OF  CHURCH  AND  STATE. 


865 


and  the  selectmen  shall  tax  the  offender  at  j£300  estate/’  (Several  acts 
governing  tlie  attire  of  the  subjects.)  ' 

44.  Every  male  shall  have  his  hair  cut  round  according  to  a  cap.*^ 
(Barber  and  Peters.)  * 

To  these  our  author  appends  the  following  note,  by  way  of  explanation  : 

“  A  cap  to  go  round  the  head  was  used,  drawn  close  to  the  head,  and 
the  haircut  by  the  cap.  A  pumpkin  severed  in  the  middle,  and  placed 
on  the  head,  was  often  used  as  a  substitute  for  a  cap,  in  the  season  of 
uhem,  as  tradition  says !  The  Levitical  laws  forbid  cutting  the  hair  or 
rounding  the  head.”^ 

O 

The  subjoined  Blue  Laws  of  Connecticut,  taken  chiefly  from  the 
collections  of  Peters  and  Barber,  regard  different  other  subjects,  and  may 
speak  for  themselves  : 

“  20.  No  one  to  cross  a  river,  but  with  an  authorized  ferryman. . 
(Barber.) 

“  25.  To  pick  an  ear  of  corn  growing  in  a  neighbour’s  garden  shall  be 
deemed  theft. 

“26.  A  person  accused  of  trespass  in  the  night  shall  be  judged  guilty 
unless  he  clear  himself  by  his  oath. 

“28.  No  one  sliall  buy  or  sell  lands  without  permission  of  the  selectmen. 

“  29.  A  drunkard  shall  have  a  master  appointed  by  the  selectmen,  who 
are  to  debar  him  from  the  liberty  of  buying  and  selling. 

“31.  No  minister  shall  keep  a  school.  (Barber.) 

“  32.  Every  rateable  person,  who  refuses  to  pay  his  proportion  to  the 
support  of  the  minister  of  the  town  or  parish,  shall  be  fined  by  the  court 
j02,  and  £4  every  quarter,  until  he  or  she  pay  the  rate  to  the  minister. 
(Other  acts  to  enforce  collection  of  parochial  taxes.) 

“  34.  A  debtor  in  prison,  swearing  he  has  no  estate,  shall  be  let  out  and 
SOLD  TO  MAKE  SATISFACTION.  (Altered  in  1656.) 

“  37.  No  Gospel  minister  shall  join  people  in  marriage.  The  magis¬ 
trates  only  shall  join  people  in  marriage,  as  they  may  do  it  with  less  scandal 
to  Christ’s  church.  (Barber.)  This  law  was  amended  by  the  court 
in  1694.  .  '  .  . 

“  39.  The  selectmen  finding  children  ignorant,  may  take  them  fronx 
their  parents,  and  place  them  in  better  hands,  at  the  expense  of  their 
parents.  (Record.) 

“41.  A  wife  shall  be  deemed  good  evidence  against  her  husband. 

“42.  Married  persons  must  live  together,  or  be  imprisoned. 

“  43.  No  man  shall  court  a  maid  in  person  or  by  letter,  without  first 
obtaining  the  consent  of  her  parents  ;  £5  penalty  for  the  first  offence;  £10 
for  the  second ;  and  for  the  third,  imprisonment  during  the  pleasure  of 
the  court.” 

In  the  following. enactment  by  the  General  Court  of  Massachusetts,  we 
may  discover  the  germ  of  the  odious  sedition  law  proposed  by  the  elder 
John  Adams  : 

“  It  is  ordered,  that  whosoever  shall  defame  any  court  of  justice,  or  any 
of  the  magistrates  or  judges  of  any  court  in  this  jurisdiction,  in  respect  of 
any  act  or  decision  therein  passed  ;  every  such  offender,  upon  due  proof 
made,  shall  be  by  the  cour  t  of  magistrates  punished  by  fine,  imprisonment, 
binding  to  the  peace  or  good  behaviour,  according  to  the  guilt  and  measure 
of  the  offence  or  disturbance,  to  them  seeming  just  and  equal. 

1  Page  123.  2  Page  124.  3  Ibid,  4  Pp.  122^.  6  Pp  6o~e. 

2K2 


866 


OUR  COLONIAL  BLUE  LAWS. 


'  In  regard  to  the  indissolubility  of  the  marriage  contract,  the  good  pil¬ 
grims  held  opinions  not  half  so  rigid  as  on  other  points  of  much  less 
importance.  Bible  in  hand,  they  allowed  of  divorce,  with  the  privilege  of 
marrying  again,  for  mere  desertion ;  as  appears  from  the  following  law  of 
tlie  New  Haven  colony  : 

And  it  is  further  declared  that  if  any  husband  shall,  without  consent, 
just  cause  shewn,  wilfully  desert  his  wife,  or  the  wife  her  husband,  actu¬ 
ally  and  peremptorily  refusing  all  matrimonial  society,  and  shall  obstinately 
persist  therein,  after  due  means  have  been  used  to  convince  and  reclaim, 
the  husband  or  wife,  so  deserted,  may  justly  seek  and  expect  help  and 
relief,  according  to  1  Cor.  vii,  15  ;  and  the  court,  upon  satisfying  evidence 
thereof,  may  not  hold  the  innocent  party  under  bondage.”* 

It  is  sinofular  enouo-h,  that  when  “  the  New  England  Eliot”  and  his 
Reverend  associates  attempted  to  evangelize  the  savage  tribes  around 
Boston,  they  could  devise  no  better  laws  for  their  government  than  those 
comprised  in  the  Blue  Law  Code.  The  poor  Indians  were  to  be  civilized 
i>y  a  system  of  trivial,  ridiculous,  and  harassing  enactments,  the  absurdity 
of  which  their  native  good  sense  must  have  detected  at  a  glance.  The 
historian  of  the  Protestant  missions  frankly  admits,  that  “  some  of  the 
regulations  were  frivolous  enough,  and  certainly  had  better  been  omitted;” 
*  but  he  adds,  in  mitigation,  “let  it  be  remembered  that  every  age  has  its 
follies.”^.  . 

Among  these  regulations  occur  the  following,  which  we  give  as  specimens: 

“If  any  woman  shall  not  have  her  hair  tied  up,  but  shall  allow  it  to 
hang  loose  and  to  be  cut  as  men’s  hair,  she  shall  pay  five  shillings.  If 
•.any  man  wear  longhair,  he  shall  pay  five  shillings.”^ 

No  wonder  the  efforts  to  convert  and  civilize  the  Indians  of  New  England 
were  so  unsuccessful,  and  finally  led  to  no  practical  good  result.  The 
method  adopted  by  the  Protestant  missionaries  was  calculated  rather  to 
repel  than  to  attract  the  savages;  and,  besides,  the  blessing  of  God  did  not 
^smile  on  their  labors  ! 

We  might  greatly  multiply  our  quotations,  but  those  we  have  alreaaj 
furnished  are  deemed  sufficient  to  show  the  distinctive  features  in  the  Blue 
Law  system  of  legislation.  Was  there  ever  such  a  system  heard  of,  either 
before  or  since  ?  Was  there  ever  one  more  wantonly  cruel  in  many  of  its 
enactments,  or  more  vexatious  m  its  minute  details?  We  believe  that  it 
is  wholly  without  a  parallel,  at  least  in  Christian  times. 

And,  be  it  remembered,  those  laws  were  not  enacted  in  a  dark  age,  but 
nearly  a  century  and  a  half  after  the  light  of  the  blessed  reformation  had 
been  beaming  full  upon  the  world  !  They  were  enacted,  tod,  by  men  who 
boasted  of  their  own  superior  religious  lights,  and  who  set  themselves  apart 
from  the  rest  of  the  world  as  Puritans,  or  peculiarly  and  holy;  by  men 
who  had  the  Bible  forever  at  their  tongues’  ends,  and  who  were  always 

J  e.  174. 

2  History  of  Missions,  or  of  the  Propagation  of  Christianity  among  thb  heathen  since  the  refor¬ 
mation.  By  Rev.  William  Brown  2  vols.  8  vo.  Philadelphia,  1816. 

Among  the  frivolous  regulations,  he  enumerates  the  following:  '“Whoever  shall  kill  their  lioe 
between  thoir  teeth,  shall  pay  flvo  ehiilinga  !  ”  3  Ibid. 


UNION  OF  CHURCH  ANE  STATE. 


367 


vaunting  llicir  reverence  for  its  sacred  principles  of  love  and  mercy;  by 
men  with  long  faces  and  sanctimonious  appearance,  who  gave  themselves 
forth  as  models  of  righteousness;  by  men,  too,  who  had  just  escaped  the  * 
lash  of  religious  persecution,  inflict(?d  on  them  hy  brother  ProtestanU  in 
Europe,  and  who  should  have  learned  more  enlarged  and  liberal  principles 
in  the  rough  school  of  suffering !  These  men  are  held  up  by  their  pos¬ 
terity  as  the  very  paragons  of  perfection  ;  and  yet  their  jmblic  acts  exhibit 
them  in  a  different  light  altoo’ether. 

O  O  \ 

.  But  the  Blue  Laws  have  been  modified  or  repealed.  True;  but  no 
thanks  are  due  to  the  Puritans  for  the  better  system  of  legislation  which 
now  obtains  in  New  England.  The  amelioration  was  forced  on  them  by 
circumstances  of  imperative  necessity ;  by  circumstances  which  it  would 
have  been  vain  in  them  to  have  attempted  either  to  resist  or  to  control.  It 
’Was  surely  no  merit  of  theirs,  that  the  odious  principle  of  a^union  of  church 
and  state  was  annulled.  The  constant  influx  of  European  emigration,  of 
persons  belonging  to  all  sects,  or  to  no  sect,  soon  left  them  in  the  minority, 
and  compelled  them  to  return  to  more  liberal  principles.  The  abroga¬ 
tion  of  the  Blue  Laws,  we  repeat  it,  was  brought  about  not  by  the 
Puritans,  but  in  spite  of  the  Puritans.  '  . 

i  Nor  let  us  be  told,  that  they  did  but  act  out  the  principles  of  their  age; 
and  that  they  were  not  alone  in  narrow-mindedness.  Even  if  it  were  so, 
it  Avould  scarcely  be  a  valid  apology  for  men,  of  whom  we  are  constantly 
informed  that  they  were  in  advance  of  their  age.  The  truth  is,  they  were 
,in  advance  of  their  age  ;  but  it  was  in  selfishness,  in  intolerance,  and  in 
bigotry.  There  were  Blue  Laws  in  many  of  the  other  colonies,  but  they 
were  few,  and  exceptions  to  the  general  order  of  things;  New  England 
was  the  very  paradise  of  Blue  Laws, — the  soil  in  which  they  were  indig¬ 
enous,  and  in  which  they  flourished  most.  We  look  in  vain  for  a  large 
collection  of  such  laws,  even  in  the  Protestant  colonies  of  New  York, 
Virginia,  and  South  Carolina,  in  all  of  which,  however,  principles  of 
proscription  for  conscience  sake  were  openly  avowed  and  occasionally  acted 
on.  We  could  easily  establish  this,  by  giving  a  brief  summary  of  the 
various  Blue  Laws  enacted  by  those  colonies,  as  furnished  us  by  our 
anonymous  “  Antiquarian.”  But  our  narrow  limits  will  not  allow  us,  at 
present,  to  go  into  the  comparison  ;  nor  do  we  deem  it  at  all  necessary  to  do 
so.  All  who  have  ever  glanced  at  the  distinctive  characteristics  of  our  early 
colonial  legislation,  will  readily  admit  that  New  England  was  manifestly 
in  advance  of  all  the  other  sections  of  the  country  in  all  that  was  blue  and 
fanatical.  In  all  this  she  stood  alone  and  unrivaled.’ 

1  We  have  not  space  to  enumerate  the  various  Blue  Laws  of  the  other  colonies.  We  present  the 
following  e.arly  laws  of  Virginia,  as  a  specimen  of  them  : 

In  March.  1623,  it  was  enacted  by  the  general  assembly  of  Virginia,  “that  whosoever  shall  absent  him- 
selfe  from  divine  service  any  Sunday  without  an  allowable  excuse,  shall  forfeite  a  pound  of  tobacco, 
and  he  that  absenteth  himselfe  a  mouth  shall  forfeite  fifty  pounds  of  tobacco.” 

It  was  further  enacted,  “  that  no  minister  be  absent  from  his  church,  above  two  months  in  all  the 
yeare,  upon  penalty  of  forfeiting  halfe  his  means,  and  whosoever  shall  be  absent  above  foure  months 
in  the  yeare  shall  forfeite  his  whole  means  and  cure.” 

“  That  no  man  dispose  of  any  of  his  tobacco  before  the  minister  be  satisfied,  upon  pain  of  forfeiture 


Date  Du» 

) 

/ 

f 


r  f  I 


f 


\ 


/ 


A 


4^ 


V 


I  ' 

f 

\  . 

r^; 


i. 


■» 


Jr" 


1 


( 


I 


-Y 


I 


r 


V 


\ 


N 


,v 

•^ .  ■ 


X 


I 


■'\'y 


/ 


Vv 


i 


» 


\. 


» 


1 


f 


A 


Sis 


>  •'^ 


tv 


BOSTON  COLLEGE 


69135 


UNIVERSITY  HEIGHTS 
CHESTNUT  HILL,  MASS. 


Books  may  be  kept  for  two  weeks  and  may 
be  renewed  for  the  same  period,  unless  re¬ 
served. 

Two  cents  a  day  is  charged  for  each  book 
kept  overtime. 

If  you  cannot  find  what  you  want,  ask  the 
Librarian  who  will  be  glad  to  help  you. 

The  borrower  is  responsible  for  books  drawn 
on  his  card  and  for  all  fines  accruing  on  the 
same. 


r.'.C'*! 

2;  ■  0 

c< 

1  c< 

% 

h 

V  ^ 

vC^ 

.  c«r  < 

